THIRD DIVISION
MILAGROS
N.
ALDOVINO,
VIRGILIO NICODEMUS,
ANGELA N. DELA CRUZ,
JULITA N. SOCO,
MAGDALENA N. TALENS
AND TEODORO S. NICODEMUS,
Complainants,
A.C.
No.
5082
February 17, 2004 -versus-
ATTY.
PEDRO C.
PUJALTE,
JR.,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I
O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
This is a Complaint
for Disbarment and/or Disciplinary Action[1]
against Atty. Pedro C. Pujalte, Jr. filed by Milagros
Nicodemus-Aldovino,
Virgilio Nicodemus, Angela Nicodemus-dela Cruz, Julita Nicodemus-Soco,
Magdalena Nicodemus-Talens and Teodoro S. Nicodemus for violation of
Canon
16 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.cralaw:red
Complainants alleged
in their complaint that they are brothers and sisters and heirs of
Arcadia
Nicodemus. Sometime in March, 1995, they hired the services of
respondent
Atty. Pujalte, Jr. as their counsel in Civil Case No. 95-46 filed with
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, Lucena City. The suit was for
specific
performance with damages to compel their sister, Loreto Nicodemus
Pulumbarit,
to deliver to them their shares in the estate of their deceased mother.cralaw:red
On November 9, 1998
the trial court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
“WHEREFORE,
FROM THE FOREGOING, the court finds for the defendant Loreto Pulumbarit
and accordingly orders the dismissal of the case with costs against
plaintiffs
and orders the Branch Clerk of Court of this branch, upon finality of
this
decision to withdraw from Savings Account No. 435-527745-9 at the
Philippine
National Bank and to deliver the proceeds to all the heirs of Arcadia
Nicodemus
upon proper receipt. Both counsels are directed to oversee the
distribution
and for them to jointly file their manifestation on the matter.”[2]
Accordingly, on
December
1, 1998, Branch Clerk of Court Angelo A. Serdon withdrew from the
Philippine
National Bank the sum of P1,335,109.68 under Savings Account No.
435-527745-9.
In the presence of defendant
Mrs. Loreto N. Pulumbarit and respondent counsel, Branch Clerk of Court
Serdon divided the withdrawn amount into eight shares of P166,888.71
each.
He gave the defendant two shares. Then he handed the remaining
amount
of P1,001,332.26, corresponding to six shares, to respondent upon his
representation
that he is authorized to receive the money and to oversee the
distribution
to complainants of their respective shares.cralaw:red
However, complainants
did not receive their shares from respondent despite repeated
demands.
Thus, they engaged the services of Atty. Francisco I. Chavez who, on
December
17, 1998, sent a letter to respondent demanding that the amount of
P1,001,332.26
entrusted to him by the Branch Clerk of Court be turned over to
complainants.cralaw:red
On December 21, 1998,
respondent wired Atty. Chavez that he will deliver to complainants
their
respective shares “tomorrow morning.”
What respondent delivered
to herein complainants was only P751,332.26, instead of P1,001,332.26
because
he deducted P250,000.00 therefrom. He claimed that this amount is
his attorney’s fees per his agreement with Milagros Aldovino,
complainants’
representative. On February 23, 1999, Atty. Chavez again wired
respondent
demanding that he return to complainants the amount of
P236,000.00.
As explained by Atty. Chavez in his telegram, respondent could retain
only
P14,000.00 (not P250,000.00), which amount is in addition to the
P86,000.00
initially paid to him by complainants as his attorney’s fees.
According
to complainants, the sum of P100,000.00 (P86,000.00 plus P14,000.00) is
more than the amount of attorney’s fees agreed upon by the parties.
Still,
respondent failed to return to complainants the amount of P236,000.00,
which is the balance after deducting P14,000.00 from P250,000.00.cralaw:red
In his comment dated
September 3, 1999, respondent admitted that he received from the Branch
Clerk of Court “P1,335,109.68” representing complainants’ shares.
Thereafter, he waited for complainants Virgilio and Teodoro Nicodemus
and
Engr. Isidro Aureada at the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Quezon where he
had a hearing, but they did not come.cralaw:red
To disprove deceit on
his part, he attached to his comment his letter dated December 2, 1998
to Engr. Isidro Aureada[3]
informing the latter that he waited for those complainants in order to
give them the money.cralaw:red
Respondent claimed that
there is a verbal agreement between him and Milagros Aldovino,
representative
of complainants, that they will pay him P250,000.00 as his attorney’s
fees.
Consequently, he deducted and retained this amount from the money
delivered
to him by the Branch Clerk of Court. At any rate, he wrote
complainants
on December 23, 1998 regarding this matter.[4]
In her Report dated
March 10, 2003,[5]
IBP Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala made the following findings
and
recommendation:
“xxx. In
the
case at bar, after respondent got hold of the entire settlement amount,
he did not immediately turn over the said amount to the complainants
who
had to look and search for him. It was only when respondent was
threatened
with a legal action (Estafa, docketed as Grim. Case No. 99-1017, RTC
Br.
58, Lucena City) that he decided to return the balance of the
settlement
amount but after deducting P250,000.00 which he claims to be his
attorney’s
fees. Complainants alleged that they have already paid respondent the
amount
of P86,000.00 which was more than double the agreed upon professional
fees.
Complainants even agreed to pay an additional P14.000.00 to complete
the
amount of P100,000.00 but there was no agreement to the effect that
respondent
will be paid P250,000.00. Respondent unilaterally appropriated the
amount
of P250,000.00 without the conformity of complainants. The lawyer is
allowed
to apply so much of the funds as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful
fees and disbursement subject to the condition that he shall promptly
notify
his client (Rule 16.03, CPR). The lawyer cannot unilaterally
appropriate
for himself the money of his client for payment of his attorney’s fees
which the client owes to the former (Cabigao vs. Rodrigo, 57 Phil 20;
Capulong
vs. Alino, 22 SCRA 491).
“PREMISES
CONSIDERED,
we find respondent to have violated Canon 16 and 16.03 of the Code of
Professional
Responsibility and recommends that he be suspended for the period of
one
(1) year from the practice of his profession as a lawyer and as a
member
of the Bar.”
On June 21, 2003, the
IBP
Board of Governors, Pasig City, passed Resolution No. XV-2003-347
adopting
and approving the Report of IBP Commissioner Maala.
We sustain the Resolution
of the IBP Board of Governors finding that respondent violated Canon
16,
Code
of Professional Responsibility and suspending him from the practice
of law for one (1) year.cralaw:red
Canon 16 and its Rule
16.03 provide:
“CANON 16 -
A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT
THAT
MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
“x
x
x
x x
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.”
Respondent should have
complied with the above provisions. When complainants demanded
that
the sum of P1,001,332.26 be delivered to them, he should have heeded
promptly.
Had they not hired a lawyer and charged him with estafa, he would not
have
turned over the money to them. While it may be true that he has “a lien
over the funds,” he should have notified complainants about it in due
time.
Respondent has no right
to retain or appropriate unilaterally as lawyer’s lien,[6]
the sum of P250,000.00. As found by IBP Commissioner Maala, there
was no agreement between him and complainants that he could retain
P250,000.00
as attorney’s fees. In fact, he did not adduce any proof of such
agreement.
His mere allegation or claim is not proof.[7]
Obviously, his failure to return the money to complainants upon demand
gave rise to the presumption that he misappropriated it in violation of
the trust reposed on him.[8]
His act of holding on to their money without their acquiescence is
conduct
indicative of lack of, integrity and propriety.[9] He was clinging to
something
not his and to which he had no right.[10]
This Court has been
exacting in its demand for integrity and good moral character of
members
of the Bar. They are expected at all times to uphold the
integrity
and dignity of the legal profession[11]
and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and
confidence
reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the
legal
profession.[12]
Membership in the legal profession is a privilege.[13]
And whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy
of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the
right
but also the duty of this Court, which made him one of its officers and
gave him the privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the
privilege.[14]
Respondent, by his conduct, blemished not only his integrity as a
member
of the Bar, but also that of the legal profession.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, respondent
ATTY. PEDRO C. PUJALTE, JR. is hereby declared guilty of violation of
Canon
16 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice
of
law for a period of one (1) year effective immediately. He is
ordered
to return the sum of P236,000.00 to complainants within five (5) days
from
notice.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Vitug, J., (Chairman), Corona,
and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Filed on June 22, 1999 with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Spreme
Court
and referred for investigation, report and recommendation (Resolution
dated
October 25, 1999, Rollo at 37) to the Commission on Bar Discipline,
Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Pasig City.
[2]
Rollo at 2.
[3]
Rollo at 31.
[4]
Id. at 32.
[5]
Id. at 78-80.
[6]
Cabigao vs. Rodrigo, 57 Phil. 20 (1932).
[7]
Sadhwani vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128119, October 17, 1997, 281
SCRA
75.
[8]
Barnachea vs. Quiocho, A.C. No. 5925, March 11, 2003, citing In Re:
David,
84 Phil. 627 (1949); Capulong vs. Alino, 22 SCRA 491 (1968).
[9]
Manalang, et al. vs. Angeles, A.C. No. 1558, March 10, 2003.
[10]
Id., citing Gonato vs. Adaza, A.C. No. 4083, March 27, 2000, 328 SCRA
694,
697.
[11]
Sipin-Nabor vs. Baterina, A.C. No. 4073, June 28, 2001, 360 SCRA 6;
Eustaquio,
et al. vs. Rimorin, A.C. No. 5081, March 24, 2003, citing Tapucar vs.
Tapucar,
355 Phil. 66, 74 (1998).
[12]
Manalang, et al. vs. Atty. Francisco F. Angeles, supra, citing Maligsa
vs. Cabanting, 272 SCRA 408, 413 (1997).
[13]
Lao vs. Medel, A.C. No. 5916, July 1, 2003, citing Dumadag vs. Lumaya,
334 SCRA 513 (2000), Arrieta vs. Llosa, 346 Phil. 932 (1997), NBI vs.
Reyes,
326 SCRA 109 (2000); Eustaquio, et al. vs. Rimorin, supra.
[14]
Eustaquio, et al. vs. Rimorin, supra, citing In Re: Almacen, No.
L-27654,
31 SCRA 562, 601-602 (1970); In Re: Paraiso, 41 Phil. 24 (1920); In Re:
Sotto, 38 Phil. 532, 549 (1918). |