CANON 16

A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND

FACTS:
• Atty. Macasa was referred by their common friend, Joe Chua to Belleza. Belleza availed of
respondent’s legal services.
• Complainant made partial payments summarized as follows:
Date Amount (in Php)
Nov. 11, 2004 15,000
A week after 10,000
Nov. 18, 2004 5,000
Nov. 21, 2004 (for purpose of 18,000
posting a bond)
• On all three occasions, Atty. Macasa did not issue any receipt.
• When complainant went to court, she found that respondent did not remit the amount to the court.
Respondent Failed to Return His Client’s Money
>The fiduciary nature of the relationship between counsel and client imposes on a lawyer the duty to
account for the money or property collected or received for or from the client.

>When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose, he should promptly
account to the client how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he
must immediately return it to the client. His failure either to render an accounting or to return the money
constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

>Moreover, a lawyer has the duty to deliver his client’s funds or properties as they fall due or upon
demand. His failure to return the client’s money upon demand gives rise to the presumption that he has
misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the
client. It is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics; it impairs public
confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. Indeed, it may border on the criminal as it
may constitute a prima facie case of swindling or estafa.
Moreover, respondent rendered no service that would have entitled him to the ₱30,000 attorney’s fees. As a
rule, the right of a lawyer to a reasonable compensation for his services is subject to two requisites: (1) the
existence of an attorney-client relationship and (2) the rendition by the lawyer of services to the client. Thus,
a lawyer who does not render legal services is not entitled to attorney’s fees. Otherwise, not only would he
be unjustly enriched at the expense of the client, he would also be rewarded for his negligence and
irresponsibility

RULING:
• IBP-CBD’s ruling: Six (6) months suspension with a stern warning

• SC’s ruling:
DISBARRED from the practice of law.
Respondent is hereby ORDERED to return to complainant Dolores C. Belleza the amounts of ₱30,000 and
₱18,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of promulgation of this decision until full payment.
Respondent is further DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of payment of the amount within ten days
from payment. Failure to do so will subject him to criminal prosecution.
 CELINA ANDRADA VS. ATTY. RODRIGO
CERA, JULY 22, 2015 A.C. 10187

FACTS:
• The complainant hired respondent to represent her in an annulment of marriage
case. Thus, the complainant gave P3,000 for NSO registration of her children
and P10,000 for advance payment for hiring of psychologist
• Complainant followed up the NSO birth certificate and receipt but respondent
always gives an excuse. Complainant then confirmed with NSO and found that
respondent never filed or paid applications for birth certificates.
• Complainant wrote a demand letter to surrender NSO receipt and return the
P10,000 but respondent refused to heed.
IBP’S RECOMMENDATION:
>Respondent violated Canon 1 and 16 of CPR
>Suspension from 3 years to one year suspension from practice of law

SC RULING:
ONE year suspension from practice of law
>The respondent failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer when he unlawfully withheld the complainant's
money. The money given to the respondent was never used for its intended purposes. These omissions
confirm the presumption that the respondent misappropriated the funds of his client, in violation of Canon 16
of the CPR that holds a lawyer in trust of all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession. The respondent, likewise, violated Rule 16.039 of Canon 16 when he failed to return the
complainant's money upon demand. We note that it was only after a year that the respondent, under threat of
a criminal case filed against him, returned the complainant's money.
>The respondent's restitution cannot serve to mitigate his administrative liability as he returned the
complainant's money not voluntarily but for fear of possible criminal liability.
 ALMIRA FORONDA VS. ATTY. JOSE L.
ALVAREZ, JR., AC 9976, JUNE 25, 2014

FACTS:
• The complainant, an OFW in Dubai, returned to the Philippines to institute a case for nullification of
marriage and hired the respondent. Complainant paid the agreed fee of P195,000 fully before June 10, 2008
and respondent promised to file the petition after full payment of his attorney’s fees or on June 11, 2008.
• In Sept. 2008, respondent told complainant the file is still pending in court.
• Complainant went back to the country in May 2009 and respondent said that it was still pending in court.
Later, complainant found that it was only filed on July 16, 2009.
• In a supposedly meeting to discuss the case, the respondent instead invited respondent to be an investor in a
lending business. Complainant agreed and gave/loaned P200,000.
• The first 2 checks were good but upon presentment of the rest, it was dishonored for being drawn against a
closed account.
IBP RULING:
>One year suspension from practice of law

SC RULING:
SUSPENDED FOR SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law

Although the respondent belatedly filed the complainant’s petition. In addition, he returned in full the money he
received as attorney's fee in spite of having gone through all the trouble of preparing the required petition and
in filing the same - not to mention the cost he incurred for the purpose.
The Court ruled that the respondent is liable for violation of Canons 15, 17, Rule 18.04, and Rule 16.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Likewise, he is also liable under Rule 1.01.
• Rule16.01 and Rule 18.03 – for failure to account the money he received, the attorney’s fees, from the
complainant.
• Rule 16.04 - for borrowing money from his client and issuing worthless checks (In Lao v. Medel, it was held
that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct)