The document discusses a case where a lawyer named Vitan was hired and paid 100,000 pesos by a client named Posidio but failed to file the case. The lower court ordered Vitan to return the money but he refused. The Supreme Court agreed Vitan should be penalized more severely than a reprimand since he failed to do the work paid for and refused to return the money.
The document discusses a case where a lawyer named Vitan was hired and paid 100,000 pesos by a client named Posidio but failed to file the case. The lower court ordered Vitan to return the money but he refused. The Supreme Court agreed Vitan should be penalized more severely than a reprimand since he failed to do the work paid for and refused to return the money.
The document discusses a case where a lawyer named Vitan was hired and paid 100,000 pesos by a client named Posidio but failed to file the case. The lower court ordered Vitan to return the money but he refused. The Supreme Court agreed Vitan should be penalized more severely than a reprimand since he failed to do the work paid for and refused to return the money.
The document discusses a case where a lawyer named Vitan was hired and paid 100,000 pesos by a client named Posidio but failed to file the case. The lower court ordered Vitan to return the money but he refused. The Supreme Court agreed Vitan should be penalized more severely than a reprimand since he failed to do the work paid for and refused to return the money.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
CELIA ARROYO-POSIDIO,Complainant, vs. ATTY. JEREMIAS R.
VITAN, Respondent. A.C. No.
6051 April 2, 2007 SUBJECT: PRACTICE OF LAW
FACTS
Posidio engaged the services of Vitan in a Testate Proceeding of the deceased Nicolasa Arroyo to which she paid Php 20,000.00 as legal fees. However, Vitan withdrew his appearance in the said case thus, Posidio had to engage the services of another lawyer. Six years after, Vitan contacted Posidio and told her that he has with some tax declarations and other documents purportedly forming part of the estate of Nicolasa Arroyo, but was not included in the inventory of properties for distribution. He convinced complainant to file another case to recover her share in the alleged undeclared properties and demanded P100,000.00 as legal fees. After several months, however, respondent failed to institute any action. Complainant decided to forego the filing of the case and asked for the return of the P100,000.00, but respondent refused despite repeated demands.
The lower court ruled in favor of Posidio and ordered Vitan to return the Php 100,000.00 and pay an additional Php 20,000.00 as interest and damages. In compliance, Vitan issued a Prudential Bank check that was dishonored later on. Despite being sent a notice of dishonor and the repeated demands to pay, Vitan refused to honor his obligation.
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner submitted his Report finding Vitan guilty of violating the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in defrauding his client and issuing a check without sufficient funds to cover the same. The IBP penalized Vitan with a reprimand with stern warning that a similar misconduct will warrant a more severe penalty.
ISSUE
Whether or not Vitan should be penalized?
HELD
The Supreme Court agrees with the findings of the IBP. However, they find that the penalty of reprimand is not commensurate to the gravity of wrong committed by Vitan.
In the instant case, respondent received the amount of P100,000.00 as legal fees for filing additional claims against the estate of Nicolasa S. de Guzman Arroyo. However, he failed to institute an action, thus it was imperative that he immediately return the amount to complainant upon demand. Having received payment for services which were not rendered, respondent was unjustified in keeping complainant’s money. His obligation was to immediately return the said amount. His refusal to do so despite complainant’s repeated demands constitutes a violation of his oath where he pledges not to delay any man for money and swears to conduct himself with good fidelity to his clients. A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may come to his possession. He is a trustee to said funds and property. He is to keep the funds of his client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the registration of a deed with the Register of Deeds and for expenses and fees for the transfer of title over real property under the name of his client if not utilized, must be returned immediately to his client upon demand. The lawyer’s failure to return the money of his client upon demand gave rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated said money in violation of the trust reposed on him. The conversion by a lawyer of funds entrusted to him by his client is a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.
