A.C. No.

9615

March 5, 2013

GLORIA P. JINON, Complainant, vs. ATTY. LEONARDO E. JIZ, Respondent. DECISION PERLA !"ERNA"E, J.: Before the Court is an administrative complaint1 for disciplinary action filed y complainant !loria ". #inon $!loria% efore the Committee on Bar Discipline $CBD% of the Inte&rated Bar of the "hilippines $IB"% a&ainst respondent 'tty. (eonardo E. #i) $'tty. #i)% for ne&lectin& her case, misappropriatin& funds, and assi&nin& her case to another la*yer *ithout her consent, in violation of the provisions of the Code of "rofessional Responsi ility. Th# $ac%& +he complaint alle&ed that !loria, after the death of her rother Charlie in #uly ,--1, entrusted t*o $,% land titles coverin& properties o*ned y their deceased parents to her sister.in.la*, /iola #. #inon $/iola%0 one located in 1an&asina, Sta. Bar ara, Iloilo $Sta. Bar ara "roperty% and the other at No. 1, /alencia St., "o lacion, (e&anes, Iloilo $(e&anes "roperty% covered y +ransfer Certificate of +itle $+C+% No. +.112324., Eventually, !loria sold the Sta. Bar ara "roperty, *hich resulted in disa&reements et*een her and /iola re&ardin& their respective shares in the proceeds. Conse5uently, /iola refused to return to !loria +C+ No. +.112324, promptin& !loria to en&a&e the services of 'tty. #i)on 'pril ,2, ,--6 to recover the said title, for *hich she immediately paid an acceptance fee of "17,---.--.6 In their su se5uent meetin&, 'tty. #i) assured the transfer of the title in !loria8s name. On 'u&ust 16, ,--6, !loria, upon 'tty. #i)8s instructions, remitted the amount of "93,---.--9 to ans*er for the e:penses of the transfer. ;o*ever, *hen she later in5uired a out the status of her case, she *as surprised to learn from 'tty. #i) that a certain 'tty. Caras *as handlin& the same. 1oreover, *hen she visited the (e&anes "roperty, *hich has een leased out to one Rose 1orado $Rose%, she discovered that 'tty. #i) has een collectin& the rentals for the period #une ,--6 up to Octo er ,--9, *hich amounted to "1,,---.--. <hen she demanded for the rentals, 'tty. #i) &ave her only "7,---.--, e:plainin& that the alance of "3,---.-- *ould e added to the e:penses needed for the transfer of the title of the (e&anes "roperty to her name. +he fore&oin& incidents prompted !loria to terminate the le&al services of 'tty. #i) and demand the return of the amounts of "93,---.-- and "3,---.-- throu&h a letter3dated Septem er ,,, ,--9, *hich has remained unheeded. +o date, 'tty. #i) has not complied *ith his underta=in& to recover +C+ No. +.112324 from /iola and effect its transfer in !loria>s name, and has failed to return her money despite due demands. ;ence, the instant administrative complaint prayin& that 'tty. #i)0 $1% e ordered to reim urse the total amount of "?7,---.-- $"17,---.-- acceptance fee, "93,---.-- for the transfer of title, and "3,---.-- as unremitted rentals for the (e&anes "roperty%@ and $,% e meted disciplinary action that the Court may deem fit under the circumstances. In his 'ns*er? and"osition "aper,7 'tty. #i) admitted acceptin& !loria>s case ut claimed that it *as only for the purpose of protectin& her ri&hts a&ainst her sister.in.la*, /iola. 'ccordin& to him, the e:tent of his le&al services covered the ne&otiation and consummation of the sale of the Sta. Bar ara "ropertyfor a fee of "73,---.--@recovery of +C+ No.+. 112324from /iola@ and the possi le filin& of an eAectment case a&ainst the tenant of the (e&anes "roperty. Bor his attorney>s fees, !loria had partially paid the sum of "?,,---.-- inclusive of the acceptance fee of "17,---.--, leavin&an unpaid alance of "16,---.--. 'tty. #i) also alle&ed that !loria approached him to secure another o*ner>s copy of a title she purportedly lost, ut *hich *ould turn out to e in /iola>s possession. Despite her offer to pay le&al fees amountin& to "1--,---.--, heclaimed to have refused to file a Cfraudulent cadastral case.C ;e li=e*ise denied havin& committed to file one or to refer the case to another la*yer.4 +hus, 'tty. #i) asseverated that he *as not remiss in his le&al duties to !loria.Denyin& lia ility to reim urse !loria for any amount, much less for "93,---.--,he claimed that he had rendered the correspondin& le&al services to her *ith fidelity and candor. In particular, he pointed to the demand letters he sent to /iola for the return of the su Aect titleandto Rose,the tenant of the (e&anes "roperty, re5uirin& the su mission of the itemi)ed e:penses for the repair of the leased property. ;e also claimed to have caused the e:ecution of a lease contract coverin& the (e&anes "roperty.;ence, he prayed that the complaint a&ainst him e dismissed. +he 'ction and Recommendation of the IB"

'fter the parties> su mission of their respective position papers, 2 the CBD, throu&h Commissioner Cecilio '.C. /illanueva $Commissioner /illanueva%, su mitted its Octo er 4, ,-1- Report and Recommendation. 1- ;e found 'tty. #i) to have een remiss in his duty to update his client, !loria, re&ardin& her case, and to respond to !loria>s letter terminatin& his services and demandin& the refund of the sum of "93,---.--, in violation of Rule 14.-9, Canon 14 of the Code of "rofessional Responsi ility *hich states0 ' la*yer shall =eep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond *ithin a reasona le time to the client>s re5uest for information. Commissioner /illanueva also o served that the scope of the le&al services that 'tty. #i) undertoo= to perform for !loria could have een clarified had he een more candid *ith the e:act fees that he intended to collect.Reco&ni)in&, ho*ever, the le&al services rendered y 'tty. #i)in the form of le&al advice, sendin& of demand letters to /iola and Rose and collectin& rentals from the latter,he found the amount of "17,---.-- as sufficient and reasona le remuneration for his services.1oreover, 'tty. #i)>sdisre&ard of the CBD>s orders D to su mit his ans*er on time and attend hearin&s D sho*ed disrespect to the Audiciary and his fello* la*yers. <ith these findin&s, Commissioner /illanueva held 'tty. #i) to have committed improper conduct and recommended that he e $1% ordered to refund to !loria the amount of "93,---.-- *ith le&al interest, and $,% reprimanded, *ith a stern *arnin& that a more drastic punishment *ill e imposed upon him for a repetition of the same acts. On Decem er 1-, ,-11, the IB" Board of !overnors passed Resolution No. EE.,-11.6-6, 11 adoptin& *ith modification the Commission>s Report and Recommendation, to *it0 RESO(/ED to 'DO"+ and '""RO/E, as it is here y unanimously 'DO"+ED and '""RO/ED, *ith modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investi&atin& Commissioner in the a ove.entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as 'nne: C'C and findin& the recommendation fully supported y the evidence on record and the applica le la*s and rules, and findin& Respondent remiss in his duty and for disre&ardin& the Orders of the Commission, 'tty. (eonardo E. #i) is here y SFS"ENDED from the practice of la* for t*o $,% years and to Ordered to Restitute complainant the amount of "93,---.-- and 1,G interest from the time he received the amount until fully paid *ithin si:ty $?-% days from notice. Th# I&&'# +he sole issue efore the Court is *hether 'tty. #i) should e held administratively lia le for havin& een remiss in his duties as a la*yer *ith respect to the le&al services he had underta=en to perform for his client, !loria. +he Court8s Rulin& 'fter a careful perusal of the records, the Court concurs *ith the findin&s of Commissioner /illanueva and the IB" Board of !overnors that 'tty. #i) *as remiss in his duties as a la*yer in ne&lectin& his client>s case, misappropriatin& her funds and diso eyin& the CBD>s la*ful orders re5uirin& the su mission of his pleadin&s and his attendance at hearin&s. ;e should thus e suspended from the practice of la* in conformity *ith prevailin& Aurisprudence. +he practice of la* is considered a privile&e esto*ed y the State on those *ho sho* that they possess and continue to possess the le&al 5ualifications for the profession. 's such, la*yers are e:pected to maintain at all times a hi&h standard of le&al proficiency, morality, honesty, inte&rity and fair dealin&, and must perform their four.fold duty to society, the le&al profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance *ith the values and norms em odied in the Code. 1, C(a*yers may, thus, e disciplined for any conduct that is *antin& of the a ove standards *hether in their professional or in their private capacity.C16 +he Code of "rofessional Responsi ility provides0 C'NON 1? D ' ('<HER S;'(( ;O(D IN +RFS+ '(( 1ONEHS 'ND "RO"ER+IES OB ;IS C(IEN+ +;'+ CO1E IN+O ;IS "OSSESSION. RF(E 1?.-1 D ' la*yer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. ::: ::: :::

RF(E 1?.-6 D ' la*yer shall deliver the funds and property of his client *hen due or upon demand. ::: ::: :::

C'NON 14. D ' ('<HER S;'(( SER/E ;IS C(IEN+ <I+; CO1"E+ENCE 'ND DI(I!ENCE. ::: ::: :::

RF(E 14.-6 D ' la*yer shall not ne&lect a le&al matter entrusted to him, and his ne&li&ence in connection there*ith shall render him lia le. ::: ::: :::

Fndenia ly, C*hen a la*yer ta=es a client>s cause, he covenants that he *ill e:ercise due dili&ence in protectin& the latter>s ri&hts. Bailure to e:ercise that de&ree of vi&ilance and attention e:pected of a &ood father of a family ma=es the la*yer un*orthy of the trust reposed on him y his client and ma=es him ans*era le not Aust to client ut also to the le&al profession, the court and society.C 19 1oreover, money entrusted to a la*yer for a specific purpose, such as for the processin& of transfer of land title, ut not used for the purpose, should e immediately returned.13 C' la*yer>s failure to return upon demand the funds held y him on ehalf of his client &ives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his o*n use in violation of the trust reposed to him y his client. Such act is a &ross violation of &eneral morality as *ell as of professional ethics. It impairs pu lic confidence in the le&al profession and deserves punishment.C 1? In this case, 'tty. #i) committed acts in violation of his s*orn duty as a mem er of the ar. 1wphi1 'side from the demand letter17 dated 'pril ,2, ,--6 *hich he sent to /iola, he failed to perform any other positive act in order to recover +C+ No. +.112324 from /iola for more than a year. ;e also failed to return, despite due demand, the funds allocated for the transfer of the title that he received from her. +he claim that the total amount of "?,,---.-- that !loria paid him *as for the services he rendered in facilitatin& the sale of the Sta. Bar ara "roperty is elied y the receipt 14 dated 'pril ,2, ,--6, *hich states that the amount of "17,---.-paid y !loria *as for Cconsultation and other le&al servicesC he *ould render Cup to and includin& 'pril 6-, ,--6.C ;is hand*ritten notation at the ottom portion made it clear that he received the said amount Cas full payment.C ;e li=e*ise failed to su stantiate his averment that he actually facilitated the sale of the Sta. Bar ara "roperty. Burthermore, respondent>s infractions *ere a&&ravated y his failure to comply *ith CBD>s directives for him to file his pleadin&s on time and to reli&iously attend hearin&s, demonstratin& not only his irresponsi ility ut also his disrespect for the Audiciary and his fello* la*yers. Such conduct *as un ecomin& of a la*yer *ho is called upon to o ey court orders and processes and is e:pected to stand foremost in complyin& *ith court directives as an officer of the court. 12 's a mem er of the ar, he ou&ht to have =no*n that the orders of the CBD as the investi&atin& arm of the Court in administrative cases a&ainst la*yers *ere not mere re5uests ut directives *hich should have een complied *ith promptly and completely.,In Rollon v. Naraval,,1 the Court suspended respondent 'tty. Naraval from the practice of la* for t*o $,% years for failin& to render any le&al service even after receivin& money from the complainant and for failin& to return the money and documents he received. Similarly, in Small v. Banares,,, the respondent *as suspended from the practice of la* for t*o $,% years for failin& to file a case for *hich the amount of "4-,---.-- *as &iven him y his client@ to update the latter of the status of the case@and to return the said amount upon demand. (i=e*ise, in /illanueva v. !on)ales,,6 the Court meted the same punishment to the respondent la*yer for $1% havin& failed to serve his client *ith fidelity, competence and dili&ence@ $,% refusin& to account for and to return his client>s money as *ell as the titles over certain properties o*ned y the latter@ and $6% failin& to update his client on the status of her case and to respond to her re5uests for information, all in violation of the Code of "rofessional Responsi ility. Considerin& the fore&oin& relevant Aurisprudence, the Court finds it appropriate to adopt the recommendation of the IB" Board of !overnors to suspend 'tty. #i) from the practice of la* for t*o $,% years. <ith respect to the amount that he should refund to !loria, only the sum of "93,---.-- plus le&al interest should e returned to her, considerin& the findin& that the initial payment of "17,---.-- *as reasona le and sufficient remuneration for the actual le&al services he rendered. +he Court notes that in administrative proceedin&s, only su stantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasona le mind mi&ht accept as ade5uate to support a conclusion, is re5uired. ,9 ;avin& carefully scrutini)ed the records of this case, the Court therefore finds that the standard of su stantial evidence has een more than satisfied. <;EREBORE, respondent 'tty. (eonardo E. #i), havin& clearly violated Rules 1?.-1 and 1?.-6, Canon 1? and Rule 14.-6, Canon 14 of the Code of "rofessional Responsi ility and diso eyed la*ful orders of the Commission on Bar Discipline, is SFS"ENDED from the practice of la* for t*o $,% years, *ith a stern *arnin& that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall e dealt *ith more severely. ;e is ORDERED to return to complainant !loria ". #inon the full amount of "93,---.-- *ith le&al interest of ?G per annum from date of demand on Septem er ,,, ,--9 up to the finality of this Decision and 1,G per annum from its finality until paid. (et a copy of this Decision e furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to e entered into respondent8s records as attorney. Copies shall li=e*ise e furnished the Inte&rated Bar of the "hilippines and the Office of the Court 'dministrator for circulation to all courts concerned. SO ORDERED.