CASE DIGEST

Freeman v. Reyes
Legal Profession

Court Supreme Court

Date November 15, 2011
Complainant Marites E. Freeman
Respondent Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes
Ponente Per Curiam
Case Summary A lawyer deceives client in procurement of visa and insurance claims of deceased husband
Relevant topic Rule 1.01 – No Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral, Deceitful Conduct

FACTS:
 Freeman filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Reyes for:
- Gross dishonesty in obtaining money from her without rendering proper legal services
- Appropriating the insurance proceeds of the insurance policies of her deceased husband
 Oct. 18, 1998: Robert, the husband of Freeman, died in London
- She and her son, Frank Lawrence, applied for visas to attend the wake and funeral
- Their application was denied
 Freeman engaged the services of Reyes
- Reyes undertook to help Freeman secure visas and obtain the death benefits and insurance claim
- Reyes told Freeman she would have to go to London and demanded the latter to bear the expenses
- Freeman gave P50k to Reyes. Later on, Freeman gave another P20k for legal costs in securing the visas,
and another P10k for travel expenses
- When inquiring about the status of her application, Reyes told Freeman that the latter was blacklisted and
banned at the Embassy. Reyes told Freeman to shell out P18k as “panlagay” or grease money. Later on,
she asked for a further P20k and a bottle of wine worth P5k
- After several weeks, Reyes told Freeman that the period for visa applications had lapsed and she needed
to pay P18k to reinstate the same. She further demanded P30k to book the flight to London and P39k to
cover expenses for plane tickets
- The amounts received were receipted for by Reyes’ law firm
 Despite repeated follow-ups by Freeman, nothing came out
- Reyes told her she needed to go to London to follow-up the insurance claims
- Reyes assured Freeman that the latter would be receiving the insurance proceeds soon
- Reyes required Freeman to sign an SPA that was not notarized. Later on, a 2 nd SPA was notarized with
her signature therein forged. A 3rd SPA was also executed, with her forged signature and additionally with
the signature of 2 witnesses. The 3rd SPA was used by Reyes in her correspondences with the insurance
companies in London
- Reyes told the insurance companies that amounts to be remitted should be deposited to the bank account
under Reyes/Mendiola
 November 1999: Freeman demanded Reyes to return her passport and the P200k she gave for the
processing of her visa application
- Reyes did not heed her demands
 Reyes denies the allegations and claims that:
- It was Freeman who offered to shoulder her plane ticket and hotel accommodations
- Freeman’s applications have been denied before (4 times) due to falsity of information
- Freeman obtained the case folder from her office secretary and refused to return the same, despite
demands, preventing their law firm from pursuing the insurance claims
- Freeman maliciously filed the suit against her to evade the payment of dues to the firm
 Freeman filed a criminal case for estafa against Reyes
- Filed with the RTC of QC but the same was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence
 Aug. 28, 2003: The CBD of the IBP issued its Report
- Found Reyes to have betrayed the trust of Freeman, her client
- Reyes was dishonest in her dealings and appropriated for herself the insurance proceeds due to Reyes
- Despite receipt of P200k, she failed to secure the visas for Freeman
- Reyes should be suspended for the maximum period allowed under law
 Sept. 27, 2003: IBP adopted the CBD recommendation
- Modified the penalty to disbarment

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUES HELD
WON Reyes is guilty of gross dishonesty and should be disbarred YES

Page 1 of 2
CASE DIGEST
Freeman v. Reyes
Legal Profession

RATIO:
 Disbarment proceedings are sui generis1
- Neither purely civil nor criminal
- The object is not to punish the lawyer, but to protect the court and the public from the misconduct of
officers of the court
- Public interest is the primary objective
- Remove from the profession those who are unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed to them as
members of the bar in order to preserve the purity of the legal profession
- Does not involve trial of an action or suit but rather an investigation into the conduct of one of its officers
(i.e. determination of administrative liability)
- May be initiated by the Court motu propio2, even in the absence of a plaintiff or prosecutor
 The receipt of payment by Reyes from Freeman constitutes sufficient evidence to establish a lawyer-client
relationship
- Even in the absence of a formal contract
- Freeman repudiates the representation of Reyes on her behalf with regard to the insurance claims by
virtue of the SPAs
 Assuming Reyes acted within the scope of her authority, Reyes should abide by the benchmarks under
Canon 16 of the CPR
- A lawyer shall hold in trust all money and properties of his client that may come into his possession
- Rule 16.01: A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client
 Must show that money was spent for a particular purpose
 If the money is not used for the intended purpose, it must be returned immediately to the client
 Reyes did not render an accounting of amounts she received from Reyes, nor of the proceeds of
the insurance claims paid out under the SPA
- Rule 16.03: A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of the client when due or upon demand
 Reyes also violated Rule 1.01, CPR
- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct
- Reyes inculcated in the mind of Freeman the nefarious culture of giving “grease money”
- Reyes was actually in London to attend the International Law Conference and merely took advantage of
the benevolence of Freeman
 An administrative case is different from a criminal case since only substantial evidence is required
- Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion
- Dismissal of the criminal case (whether by failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt or that no crime
was committed) does not preclude the continuance of a separate and independent action for
administrative liability
 The relation between attorney and client is highly fiduciary in nature
- Requires utmost good faith, loyalty, fidelity, and disinterestedness on the part of the lawyer
- Fiduciary nature is intended for the protection of the client
- Canon of Professional Ethics: A lawyer should refrain from any action where for his personal benefit or
gain, he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client
- Money/property received from client should be accounted for and not be put to personal use by the lawyer
- Failure to return money/property held in behalf of the client upon demand gives rise to the presumption
that the same has been appropriated for his own use to the prejudice of the client and in betrayal of the
public confidence in the legal profession
- Those guilty of such infractions may be disbarred or suspended indefinitely from the practice of law
 Lawyering is not a business. Duty to public service and not money is the primary consideration
- It is a calling impressed with public interest for which it is subject to State regulation
- Reyes’ acts transgressed the norms of honesty and integrity required in the practice of law
- In previous cases, lawyers guilty of breach of trust and confidence pertaining to clients’ money and
properties were stripped of the privilege to practice the profession

RULING:
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes is found guilty of gross misconduct and DISBARRED from the
practice of law. Let her name be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. This Decision is immediately executory.

1
Unique
2
At his own impulse
Page 2 of 2