Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FRIAS
A. C. No. 6656 (formerly CBD-98-591)
December 13, 2005
FACTS:
In the early part of 1990 Atty. Lozada acted as retained counsel and legal adviser of here
in complainant, Frias.
In December 1990, respondent then arranged a meeting with the complainant and
another client of her, Dr. San Diego for the sale of the complainants property and respondent
allegedly acted as broker. They entered into a MOA if ever the sale is aborted after payment of
the selling price, the same property shall be mortgaged in favor of the consideration or amount
given on the prior sale subsequently aborted.
San Diego then paid the complainant P3M as consideration, and complainant gave the
TCT of the subject property.
Respondent collected P1M, P900, 000 of which as her commission, and the remaining
P100 000 for the payment by respondent to another person whom they had transaction with,
prior to this transaction, subject on this case. When complainant protested about the collection
of Atty. Lozadas commission, respondent promised to sign a promissory note later.
San Diego eventually backed out from the sale, and converted the aborted sale into a
mortgage loan at 36% p.a. interest, as provided in the MOA.
Since the transaction between her and San Diego did not materialize, complainant
allegedly tried to recover from respondent the title to the property and other documents.
Complainant recovered the documents placed inside an envelope only. On the same day,
however, the envelope was allegedly stolen from her Pajero. She reported the incident to the
police. She also informed respondent about the incident, and the latter prepared an affidavit of
loss. Complainant later offered this affidavit as evidence in a petition for issuance of a duplicate
copy of the title she filed, in the RTC of Makati.
A perjury case was then filed by San Diego against complainant on the ground that the
title to the property was never really lost but was with San Diego all along. San Diego
maintained that complainant handed it to her on the day they signed the MOA. Complainant
denied these allegations. She instead claimed that the perjury case was filed by San Diego,
with respondent as counsel, to coerce her (complainant) to assign the property to San Diego
and to abandon her claim from respondent.
San Diego also filed a case for the return of the P3M she paid complainant, at 36% p.a.
interest. Complainant claimed that her failure to return the money to San Diego was by reason
of respondents refusal to give back the amount she took as commission. Complainant was thus
constrained to file a civil case against respondent. Despite the favorable decision of the trial
court, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, respondent refused to return the money.
In a report and recommendation dated July 25, 2000, the IBP Investigating
Commissioner found respondent guilty of dishonesty and malpractice for concealing the identity
of the person in actual possession of complainants documents and for preparing an affidavit of
loss even if she knew that the documents were in San Diegos custody. A suspension for six
months from the practice of law was accordingly recommended.
RULING:
Secondly, her act of borrowing money from a client was a violation of Canon 16.04 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility:
A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests are
fully protected by the nature of the case and by independent advice.
A lawyers act of asking a client for a loan, as what respondent did, is very unethical. It
comes within those acts considered as abuse of clients confidence. The canon presumes that
the client is disadvantaged by the lawyers ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on
her obligation.
Finally, a lawyer should, at all times, comply with what the court lawfully requires. Here,
respondent continues to disregard the final order of the Court of Appeals finding her liable for
the P900,000 she received from complainant. We see no justification for her continued delay in
complying with an order that has long become final. Respondent adamantly insists that she and
complainant should simultaneously settle their obligations. As a lawyer, she should have known
that her obligation to complainant was independent of and separate from complainants
obligation to the buyer.