18 espiritu vs ulep

FACTS:
In 1997, a compromise agreement was reached between Oscar Espiritu and Ricardo Maon whereby
Espiritu agreed to deliver P50k to Maon. Espiritu handed the P50k to Atty. Ulep, his lawyer, so that the
latter may deliver it to Maon. Ulep failed to deliver the money to Maon and thereafter he avoided talking
to Espiritu. Espiritu then sought the assistance of the local IBP chapter. Thereafter, Ulep was invited but
he failed to appear for five consecutive scheduled hearings. The IBP chapter then heard the case ex
parte and subsequently recommended Uleps suspension.
ISSUE: Whether or not the recommendation is correct.
HELD: Yes. Ulep violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer should hold in
trust all money and properties of his client that may come into his possession. In the case at bar, Ulep
failed to explain what he did with the money. The relation between attorney and client is highly fiduciary
in nature. Being such, it requires utmost good faith, loyalty, fidelity and disinterestedness on the part of
the attorney. Its fiduciary nature is intended for the protection of the client. Money of the client or
collected for the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be
reported and accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstances be commingled with his
own or be used by him. Lawyers who misappropriate the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of
professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. The Supreme
Court suspended Ulep for 6 months and ordered him to pay the P50k plus interest.