Lawyer suspended for failure to account for client's money

A.C. No. 7965. November 13, 2013
Azucena Segovia-Ribaya Vs. Atty. Bartolome C. Lawsin
"x x x.

Anent respondent’s administrative liability, the Court agrees with the IBP that respondent’s failure to properly account for and duly return his client’s money despite due demand is tantamount to a violation of Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code which respectively read as follows:

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 16.03 – 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.

Records disclose that respondent admitted the receipt of the subject amount from complainant to cover for pertinent registration expenses but posited his failure to return the same due to his client’s act of confronting
him at his office wherein she shouted and called him names. With the fact of receipt being established, it was then respondent’s obligation to return the money entrusted to him by complainant. To this end, suffice it to state that complainant’s purported act of “maligning” respondent does not justify the latter’s failure to properly account for and return his client’s money upon due demand. Verily, a lawyer’s duty to his client is one essentially imbued
with trust so much so that it is incumbent upon the former to exhaust all reasonable efforts towards its faithful compliance. In this case, despite that singular encounter, respondent had thereafter all the opportunity to return the subject amount but still failed to do so. Besides, the obligatory force of said duty should not be diluted by the temperament or occasional frustrations of the lawyer’s client, especially so when the latter remains unsatisfied by the lawyer’s work. Indeed, a lawyer must deal with his client with professional maturity and commit himself towards the objective fulfilment of his responsibilities. If the relationship is strained, the correct course of action is for the lawyer to properly account for his affairs as well as to ensure the smooth turn-over of the case to another lawyer. Except only for the retaining lien exception 23 under Rule 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code, the lawyer should not withhold the property of his client.

Unfortunately, absent the applicability of such exception or any other justifiable reason therefor, respondent still failed to perform his duties under Rules 16.01 and 16.03, 16 of the Code which perforce warrants his administrative liability.

The Court, however, deems it proper to increase the IBP’s recommended period of suspension from the practice of law from six (6) months to one (1) year in view of his concomitant failure to exercise due diligence in handling his client’s cause as mandated by Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code:

CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. 

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.

After a judicious scrutiny of the records, the Court observes that respondent did not only accomplish his undertaking under the retainer, but likewise failed to give an adequate explanation for such non-performance
despite the protracted length of time given for him to do so. As such omissions equally showcase respondent’s non-compliance with the standard of proficiency required of a lawyer as embodied in the above-cited rules, the
Court deems it apt to extend the period of his suspension from the practice of law from six (6) months to one (1) year similar to the penalty imposed in the case of Del Mundo v. Capistrano.24

As a final point, the Court must clarify that the foregoing resolution should not include a directive for the return of the amount of P31,500.00 as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. The same amount was given
by complainant to respondent to cover for registration expenses; hence, its return partakes the nature of a purely civil liability which should not be dealt with during an administrative-disciplinary proceeding. In Tria-Samonte v.
Obias,25 the Court recently held that its “findings during administrative disciplinary proceedings have no bearing on the liabilities of the parties involved which are purely civil in nature – meaning, those liabilities which
have no intrinsic link to the lawyer's professional engagement – as the same should be threshed out in a proper proceeding of such nature.” This pronouncement the Court applies to this case and thus, renders a disposition solely on respondent’s administrative liability.

x x x."