SALOMON, JR. v. ATTY.

FRIAL

Facts:

A writ of preliminary attachment was issued in favour of Lucy Lo, the client of
Atty. Frial, over two cars a black 1995 Volvo and a green 1993 Nissan Sentra.
According to Atty. Salomon, the attaching sheriff of Manila, instead of depositing the
attached cars in the court premises, turned them over to Atty. Frial.

The Nissan Sentra was spotted being used by unauthorized individuals on

several occasions. As for the Volvo, Atty. Salomon averred that during mediation,
Atty. Frial deliberately withheld information as to its whereabouts. As it turned out
later, the Volvo was totally destroyed by fire, but the court was not immediately put
on notice of this development.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found in its Report that while there is
perhaps no direct evidence tying up Atty. Frial with the use of the Nissan Sentra, the
unyielding fact remains that it was being used by other persons during the time he
was supposed to have custody of it. As for the Volvo, Atty. Frials could not explain
the circumstances behind its destruction, but admitted not reporting the burning to
the court or sheriff. Thus, the Commission concluded that Atty. Frial committed acts
clearly bearing on his integrity as a lawyer, adding that he failed to observe the
diligence required of him as custodian of the cars. The Commission recommended
that Atty. Frial be suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.

Issue:

Is Atty. Frial guilty of grave misconduct in dealing with the 2 cars belonging to
Luco Lo?

Ruling:

YES, Atty. Frial is guilty of grave misconduct arising from his violation of
Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics that states:

11. Dealing with trust property

The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain
he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his 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.

Very patently, Atty. Frial was remiss in his obligation of taking good care of
the attached cars. He also allowed the use of the Nissan Sentra car by persons who
had no business using it. He did not inform the court or at least the sheriff of the
destruction of the Volvo car. What is worse is that he took custody of them without
so much as informing the court, let alone securing, its authority.

The Court, nevertheless, is not inclined to impose, as complainant urges, the

ultimate penalty of disbarment. The rule is that disbarment is meted out only in
clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and moral character of
a lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. Thus, the Court found
that a years suspension from the practice of his legal profession will provide him
with enough time to ponder on and cleanse himself of his misconduct.

PARAS v. PARAS, JR.

Facts:

In September 2006, Rouel Paras (complaintant) found out that a listing of

possible beneficiaries for the Department of Agrarian Reform's Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program was being made by a certain Edna Mijares and Tomas
Visitacion. On the same month, he received at their residence in Negros Oriental a
copy of a Notice of Coverage from the Department of Land Reform.

The Notice of Coverage was addressed to Atty. Paras and was signed by
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer Grace B. Fua. Five (5) of the six (6) properties
listed in the Notice of Coverage were those subject of Civil Case No. 02-028-BY
pending before Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court of Bais City, N egros Oriental.
Civil Case No. 02-028-BY is based on a Complaint filed by Rouel against Atty. Paras
for annulment of Original Certificates of Title of the properties.

Rouel referred the matter to his counsel, who wrote Provincial Agrarian
Reform Officer Grace B. Fua. Io In said letter, his counsel requested a copy of all
documents pertaining to the Notice of Coverage addressed to Atty. Paras. Rouel's
counsel also informed the Department of Agrarian Reform that: ( 1) the real
properties were subject of a pending case; (2) Atty. Paras was suspended by this
Court for unlawfully having the said properties titled in his name; (3) the properties
were titled in the name of Atty. Paras only for free patent title coverage; (4) Atty.
Paras did not possess the properties; and (5) Rouel was the real owner and in
possession of the properties.

The Department of Agrarian Reform granted the request & furnished Rouel
with all documents related to the Notice of Coverage. With such documents, Rouel
Yap Paras filed a Complaint before the Court, praying for his fathers disbarment, as
the latter had already been suspended by the Court in 2 previous administrative
cases.
 The case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report & recommendation.
In his Report and Recommendation, Commissioner Hababag found respondent guilty
of violating his lawyers oath & the Code of Professional Responsibility, thus:

Respondent has been deplorably lacking in the candor required of him as member
of the bar in his acts of applying for the issuance of a free patent over the
properties in issue despite knowledge that the same had already been sold by his
mother to complainant's aunt. This fact, respondent even admitted in the comment,
he committed deceit and falsehood in his application for free patent over the said
properties when he manifested under oath that he had been in the actual
possession and occupation of the said lands despite the fact these were
continuously in the possession and occupation of complainant's family, as
evidenced no less by respondent's own statements in the pleadings filed before the
IBP in Adm. Case No. 4947.

The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted & approved Commissioner

Hababags report & recommendation, but modified the penalty and reduced
respondents suspension from 1 year to 6 months. Complainant moved for
reconsideration, praying that disbarment be imposed instead, but this was denied.

Issue:

Did respondent violate his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility when he voluntarily offered property that he neither owned nor
possessed for coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program?

Ruling:

YES.

In deciding this case, this Court takes judicial notice of two (2) administrative
cases filed by Rosa Yap-Paras against respondent. In Paras v. Atty. Paras, respondent
was found guilty of falsifying Rosa Yap-Paras' signature in bank loan documents and
other related instruments; and of immorality, concubinage, and abandonment of his
own family.

In Yap-Paras v. Atty. Paras, respondent was found guilty of violating his

lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he "[applied] for the
issuance of a free patent over the properties in issue despite his knowledge that the
same had already been sold by his mother to complainant's sister."

Both Yap-Paras and this case involve the same real properties. Both likewise
refer to respondent's deceit and misrepresentation as basis for his administrative
sanction.
 This is respondent's fourth case involving the same properties and his second
infraction of an offense of the same nature. The six (6)-month suspension imposed
by the Commission on Bar Discipline is too light a penalty. Respondent deserves a
graver penalty for his acts of dishonesty, misrepresentation, and deceit. The Court
thus disbarred Atty. Justo J. Paras from the practice of law.