NATIVIDAD P. NAVARRO AND HILDA S. PRESBITERO VS ATT.IVAN M.

SOLIDUM JR.
A.C NO. 9872, January 8, 2014
PER CURIAM

Facts:
Atty. Solidum signed a retainer agreement with Presbitero in assisting and
representing her to a several suits. Likewise, Ma. Theresa P. Yulo, daughter of Presbitero,
also enganged respondents services in handling the lot for the registration her 18.85hectare lot in which Navarro financed. On May 25, 2006 and June 2006 respondent
successively obtained a loan from Navarro amounting to P1, 000,000 each time with
Memorandum of Agreement agreeing that the loan shall earn interest at the rate of 10%
and shall be secured by a real estate covered by TCT 304688. At the same time he then
obtained a loan of P1, 000,000 covered by a third MOA except that the real estate
mortgage was over a 263 square meter property. However, Presbitero was not satisfied
with the property so the respondent promised to execute a real estate mortgage over a
1000 square meter property adjacent to the 4,000 square meter he mortgaged to Navarro
but he later did not execute the deed.
Complainants Argument: They alleged that the respondent induced them to grant him
loans by offering very high interest rates, and signed the checks which turned out to be
drawn against his sons account and that the respondent deceived the value of the
property that was mortgaged.

Respondents Argument: He alleged that Navarro fixed the interest rate and he agreed
because he needed the money and denied that the property he mortgaged to Presbitero
was less than the value of the loan

Issue: Whether or Not respondent Atty. Ivan Solidum Jr. violated Canon 16 and Rule
16.01 and 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling:
The Court held that they agree with the IBP-CBD that respondent failed to fulfill
his duty and violating Canon 16 and Rule 16.01. The Fiduciary nature of the relationship
between the counsel and his client imposes on the lawyer the duty to account for the
money or property collected or received from his client. The respondent received various
amounts from complainants but he could not account for all of them. Respondent has
been less than diligent in accounting from the funds he received from Navarro from the
registration of Yulos Property.
The Court also rules that the respondent violated Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the
lawyers ability to use all legal maneuverings to renege his obligation because in his
dealings with his client respondent took advantage of his knowledge of the law as well as
the trust and confidence reposed in him by his client. That at the time he obtained a loan
from Presbitero he was already the retained counsel of the latter. While a MOA secured
respondents loan from Presbitero, it turned out that respondent misrepresented the value
of the property he mortgaged and that the checks he issued were not drawn from his
account but from that of his son. He then eventually questioned the terms of the MOA
that he himself prepared on the ground that the interest rate is unconscionable. Therefore,
the interests of his client Presbitero, the lender in this case, were not fully protected. The
court finds the respondent guilty and DISBARS him from the practice of law.

AGOT VS RIVERA
A.C NO. 8000, AUGUST 5, 2014
PERLAS-BERNABE, J
FACTS:
Complainant sought the services of the respondent, who represented himself as an
immigration lawyer, to facilitate the issuance of her United States Visa. On November 17,
2007 they entered into a Contract of Legal Services where respondent undertook to
facilitate and secure the release of a US immigrant visa in complainants favor prior to
the scheduled wedding. The complainant paid respondent P350, 000 as down payment
and will undertook payment of P350, 000 after the issuance of the U.S Visa with a
stipulation that should the complainant be denied for any reason other than her absence
on the day of the interview and or records of criminal conviction or any court-issued hold
departure order, respondent is obligated to return the said down payment.
However the respondent failed to perform the task within the agreed period and
worst the complainant was not even scheduled for interview in the US Embassy.
Complainant then filed a criminal complaint of Estafa and the instant administrative
complaint against respondent when the demand for refund was not heeded.
Respondent argued that his failure to comply with his obligation under the contract was
due to false pretenses of a certain Rico Pineda who he had believed to be a consul for the
US Embassy and to whom he had delivered the amount given by the complainant.
Issue: Whether or Not the Respondent violated Canon 16 Rule 16.01 and 16.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility

Held:
The Court held that respondent violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the
CPR when he failed to refund the amount of P350,000 that complainant paid him. A
lawyers failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in
this case, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own
violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general
morality as well as of professional ethics.
Finally, the court sustains the IBPs recommendation ordering the respondent to
return the amount of P350, 000 he received from complainant he received from
complainant as down payment. The Court finds Atty. Luis P. Rivera is found guilty of
Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
suspended from the practice of law for 2 years with a stern warning that a repetition of
the same or similar acts shall be dealt with accordingly.

NERY VS SAMPANA
A.C NO. 10196, September 09, 2014
CARPIO, ACTING C.J
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that she engaged the services of the respondent for the
annulment of her marriage and for her adoption by an alien adopter. The petition for
annulment was later granted so the complainant paid P200, 000.00 to respondent. As for
the adoption complainant paid P100, 000.00 to respondent and no longer asked for
receipts since she trusted respondent. On February 14,2009 respondent informed the
complainant that he already filed the petition for adoption and it was already published
and that the hearing was set to March 5, 2010 but was later reset to March 12, 2010.
On March 11, 2010 complainant inquired from Branch 11 of Malolos Bulacan
about the status of the petition and discovered that no such petition were filed in the
court. Complainant then demanded for the reimbursement of P100, 000.00 she paid him,
but the demands were left unheeded.
Issue: Whether or Not respondent violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD:
Sampana negelected the legal matter entrusted to him and even kept the money
given him, in violation of the Codes mandate to deliver the clients fund upon demand. A
lawyers failure to return upon demand the funds held by him gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use, in violation of the trust
reposed in him by his client and of the public confidence in the legal profession.
Wherefore respondent is suspended for 3 years from the practice of law

CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED VS TORRES

A.C NO. 10438, September 23, 2014
PER CURIAM
FACTS:
Complainant hired respondent as its Legal and Claims Manager who has tasked to
serve as its legal counsel and to oversee the administration and management of legal
cases and medical-related claims instituted by seafarers against complainants various
principals.
Among the cases respondent handled were the claims of seafarers Mangi,
Sampani, Delgado and Chua. It was alleged that complainant issued checks per
respondents request as a settlement for the respective claims.
However, complainant later discovered that aside from the check of Delgado,
respondent never gave the checks to the seafarers instead had them deposited at
International Exchange Bank. Complainant also discovered that Sampani only received a
total of P225,239.00 out of the P625,013.20 requested through check not issued by
complainant.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Canon 16 of the CPR
HELD:
It has been held that a lawyers failure to return upon demand the funds held by
him gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use, in
violation of the trust reposed in him by his client and of the public confidence in the legal
profession.

Complainant had duly proven its charges to respondent. In Particular,

respondents modus operandi of repeatedly requesting checks for the purpose of settling
seafarers claims against the complainant only to have it deposited to an unauthorized
bank account.
It is well settled that when a lawyer receives money from the client for a
particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that
the money was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does not intend to use the money
for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to his client,
which the respondent failed to do. Respondent is therefore found guilty of Rules 16.01
and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

YLAYA VS GACOTT
A.C NO. 6475, January 30, 2013
BRION, J.
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that she and her late husband are the owners of two
parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 162632 and 162633 subject for expropriation
proceedings filed in the City Government of Puerto Princesa against former owner Cirillo
Arellano which was represented by the respondent. The complainant then alleged that the
respondent convinced them to sign a preparatory deed of sale, but he left the blank
space for the name of the buyer and for the amount of consideration. The respondent then
without the complainants consent turns the Preparatory Deed of Sale into a Deed of
Absolute Sale selling the property to Reynold and Sylvia So for P200, 000.
Complainants denied that she and Lurentino were paid P200, 000 or that they would sell
the property for small amount when they should at least get P6, 000,000 as just
compensation.
Respondent argued that complainants greed to get just compensations caused her
to file this baseless, unfounded, and malicious disbarment case.
ISSUE: Whether or Not respondent violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
Held:
We affirm the IBP Commissioners finding that the respondent violated Canon 16.
The respondent admits to losing certificates of land titles that were entrusted to his care
by Reynold. According to the respondent, the complainant maliciously retained the
TCTs over the properties sold by Laurentino to Reynold after she borrowed them from
his office. Reynold confirms that the complainant took the TCTs from the respondents
law office.

The respondent is reminded that his duty under Canon 16 is to hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Allowing a party to take
the original TCTs of properties owned by another an act that could result in damage
should merit a finding of legal malpractice. While we note that it was his legal staff who
allowed the complainant to borrow the TCTs and it does not appear that the respondent
was aware or present when the complainant borrowed the TCTs, we nevertheless hold the
respondent liable, as the TCTs were entrusted to his care and custody; he failed to
exercise due diligence in caring for his clients properties that were in his custody.
Wherefore, respondent was found guilty and is suspended for 1 year.

JINON VS. JIZ

A.C NO. 9615, March 5, 2013
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
FACTS:
The complainant alleged that after the death of her brother Charlie, her brother
entrusted her 2 land titles covering properties owned by their deceased parents to her
sister in law Viola Jinon. Complainant then sold the property in Sta. Barbara, which
resulted to a disagreement between her and Viola regarding their respective shares. Viola
then refused to return to Gloria TCT NO. T-19598. Complainant then engages the service
of the respondent to recover such title.
Atty.Jiz on August 2003 instructed Gloria to remit an amount of P45, 000 to
answer for the expense transfer. Upon inquiring of the status of the case complainant
learned from respondent that Atty. Caras was also handling the same. When she went to
the Leganes Property of which has been leased out she discovered that the respondent has
been collecting rentals amounting to P12, 000. Complainant then demanded the rentals in
which the respondent only gave her P7, 000 stating that the P5, 000 would be added to
the expense needed for the transfer of the title to the complainants name. Complainant
the terminated the legal services of Atty.Jiz because that incident and demanded the
return if P45, 000 and P5,000.
ISSUE: Whether or Not Atty. Jiz should be held liable for having been remiss in his
duties, as a lawyer with respect to the legal services ha had undertaken to perform.
Held:
The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who
show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession.
As such, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal
proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform their four-fold
duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the

values and norms embodied in the Code. Lawyers may, thus, be disciplined for any
conduct that is wanting of the above standards whether in their professional or in their
private capacity
Moreover, money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for the
processing of transfer of land title, but not used for the purpose, should be immediately
returned. A lawyers failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of
his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use
in violation of the trust reposed to him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of
general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal
profession and deserves punishment. The Court ruled that having been violated Rules
16.01 and 16.03 Canon 16 of the Code of Professional responsibility the respondent is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 2 years

PENILLA VS ALCID
A.C NO. 9149, September 4, 2013
Villarama, Jr., J
FACTS:
Complainant engaged the services of the respondent for a breach of contract case
against Spouses Garin

SEGOVIA-RIBAYA VS LAWSIN
A.C NO. 7965, November 13,2013
PERLAS-BERNABE, J
FACTS:
Complainant and Respondent entered into a retainership agreement whereby
respondent undertook the processing of the registration and eventually deliver within 6
months the certificate of a certain parcel of land. Respondent received P15,000 and
P39,000 to cover for the litigation and land registration expenses. Respondent without
proper explanation failed to fulfill his undertakings that prompted complainant to
withdraw the subject amount to respondent and sent him 2-demand letter but all to no
avail.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violation
Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code
HELD:
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 clients act of confronting him at his office wherein she shouted and
called him names. With the fact of receipt being established, it was then respondents
obligation to return the money entrusted to him by complainant. To this end, suffice it to
state that complainants purported act of maligning respondent does not justify the
latters failure to properly account for and return his clients money upon due demand.
Verily, a lawyers 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 lawyers client, especially so when the latter remains unsatisfied by the lawyers
work. Indeed, a lawyer must deal with his client with professional maturity and commit
himself towards the objective fulfillment 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 turnover of the case to another lawyer. Except only for the
retaining lien exception 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, Canon 16 of the Code which perforce warrants his
administrative liability. The Court finds the respondent GUILTY and is SUSPENDED
from the practice of Law for 1 year