CANONS 14-17

BURBE v. MAGULTA

FACTS:

After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to both cause and client, even if he never paid any fee for the atty-client relationship. Lawyering is NOT a business.

A case brought to the SC is a complaint for disbarment or suspension/disciplinary action against Atty. Alberto C. Magulta. Filed by Dominador P. Burbe w/ the IBP.

The petitioner was introduced to Atty Magulta to represent him in a money claim and possible civil case against parties for breach of contract re Regwll complaint. After which, Atty. Magulta prepared a demand letter and some legal papers for which the petitioner accordingly paid. However, the latter failed a settlement for a dispute, said counsel suggested to file necessary complaint w/ a filing fee of P25K.

Petitioner then deposited the said amount to Atty. Magulta upon instruction. A week later, he was informed by Atty. Magulta that the complaint was already filed and that Burbe will receive notice of progress. He waited for MONTHS but there seemed to be NO PROGRESS in his case so he frequented Magulta’s office and there he was told repeatedly to wait.

Grown impatient, he was brought to the Hall of Justice at Ecoland, Davao City where he was left at the City Prosecutor Office ffof Magulta will follow up the processes w/the Clerk of Court. Sensing that Burbe was being given run-around by Magulta, he decided to go to the office of the Clerk and then and there was told that there was NO RECORD AT ALL of a case allegedly filed by Atty. Magulta.

And only when shown the certification did counsel admit that he has not at all filed BECAUSE HE HAD SPENT MONEY FOR FILING FOR HIS OWN PURPOSE. To appease him, he was given postdated checks of P12K and P8K.

HELD:

Agreed w/ IBP’s Recommendation (suspend counsel for 1year)

Lawyers mist exert their best efforts and ability in the prosecution of the defense of the client’s cause. They who perform that duty with diligence and candor NOT only protect the interests of the client but also serve ends of justice. Members of the bar must do NOTHING THAT MAY TEND TO LESSEN CONFIDENCE of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the profession.

NOTE: contention that there was no lawyer-client relationship is untenable. This relation was established form the very first moment complainnat asked the respondent for legal advice re fomer’s business.

If a person in respect to business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults a lawyer w/ a view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and atty voluntarily permits or acquiesces w/ the consultation, professional employment is ESTABLISHED.

Also, close personal relationship bet.lawyer and client is no reason to est.said relationship. Hence, despite the fact that complainant was kumpadre of a law partner of respondent, and that respondent dispensed legal advice to complainant as a personal favor to the kumpadre, lawyer was DUTY-BOUND to file the complaint agreed to prepare in order to PROTECT client’s interest. RULE 18.03 provides that lawyers shouldn’t neglect legal matters entrusted to them.

NOTE: The Court constantly held that once lawyers agree to take up the cause of a client, they owe fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. They owe entire devotion to the interest of the client.

PRACTICE OF LAW-A PROFESSIO, NOT A BUSINESS. Lawyering is NOT primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is NOT a capital that necessarily yield profits. DUTY TO PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMIN OF JUSTICE should be the primary consideration of lawyers who must subordinate their personal interests.

“The practice of law is a noble calling in which emolument is a by-product, and the highest imminence may be attained w/o making much money.”

RULE 16.01 states that lawyers shall hold in trust all moneys of their clients and ppties that may come

into their possession. If much is demanded to an atty., it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries w/ it correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. Respondent fell short of this standard when he converted into his legal fees the filing fee entrusted to him by his client and thus failed to file complaint promptly,.

RULING: SUSPENDED FOR 1 YEAR. (DISBARMENT: Only in a case of clear misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer)

UY v. GONZALES

FACTS:

WiLLIAM S. Uy filed an admin case against Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales for violation of the confidentiality of their lawyer-client relationship.

That sometime in Apr 1999, he engaged the services of said lawyer to prepare and file a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title. After confiding w/ respondent the circumstances surrounding the lost title and discussing the fees and costs, respondent prepared, finalized and submitted to him a petition to be filed before the RTC of Tayug, Pangasinan. After which, respondent went to the complainant’s office and demanded additional amount from him other than their agreement.

Expecting that said petition would be filed, he was shocked to find out later that instead of filing the petition for the issuance of a new cert.of title, respondent filed a letter-complaint against him for Falsification of Pub Docs.

From the portions of the letter-complaint, it can be gleaned that William S. Uy conspired w/ the counsel and helped one anotherin procuring th falsified docs w/c they used as supporting papers so that they can secure form the Office of the RD of Pangasinan in favor of his children.

With the execution of such letter, respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and grossly disregarded his duty to preserve the secrets of his client. Respondent unceremoniously turned against the client for having such additional compensation denied.

(The land in question was owned by the Fermin C. Gonzales Jr., respondent’s son)

NOTE: Accdg to the version of the defendant, the redemption of the land previously owned by his late son was acquired by the complainant. To redeem said land, counsel paid P340k and demanded delivery of TCT. The reason of frequently visiting the office of complainant was due to the said demand. Complainant just gave him photocopies of the TCTs and former explained that he had already transferred the title of the property to his children, Michael and Cristina Uy.

The same title was admittedly misplaced and cannot be located. Thus, counsel offered assistance pro bono so that they can prepare petition for lost title provided all necessary expenses (est. P20k) will be shouldered by complainant.

After which, he submitted the draft to the complainant for such lost title and waited for the latter for 2 hours. However, he found out that complainant left the office w/o him knowing. Such conduct infuriated him w/c led him to write (handwritten) a letter that he is w/drawing petition and he better get another lawyer to file such petition.

CONTENTION OF COUNSEL: Lawyer-client rel. was terminated when he gave the letter and there was no longer professional relationship bet.the 2. Commissioner Villanueva-Maala received a letter from one complainant’s counsel that they lost interest pursuing the complaint. Accdg to her, there was violation of CANON 21 (that a lawyer shall preserve confidence and secrets of client even after atty-client rel. is terminated)

NOTE: The duty to maintain inviolate the client’s confidence is NOT temporary but PERMANENT. And such desistance cannot interrupt proceedings. (Rule 139-B).

DESISTANCE CANNOT INTERRUPT A DISBARMENT/SUSPENSION CASE. This is because disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. NOTE: Complainant is in no sense party, he has

generally no interest in the outcome except as a good citizen in the proper admin of justice.

HELD:

Complainant failed to prove any circumstances enumerated above that would warrant the disbarment or suspension of respondent. NOTE: their relationship stemmed froma PERSONAL TRANSACTION OR DEALINGS rather than a practice of law.

NOTE: As a rule, an atty-client relationship s said to exist when a lawyer VOLUNTARILY PERMITS OR ACQUIESCES w/ the consultation of a person, who in respect to a business or trouble of any kind, consults a lawyer w/ a view of obtaining prof’l advice or assistance regardless of any retainer AS LONG AS IT IS PERTINENT TO MATTERS OF HIS PROFESSION.

Accdg to the SC, respondent’s IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE wa to secure the title of the ppty that complainant had earlier bought from his son. Clearly, there was no atty-client relationship. The preparation and filing was only INCIDENTAL to their personal transaction.

CANON 21 RULE 21.01

Whatever acts against the complainant were obtained in his prof capacity but as a redemptioner when respondent filed the complaint of estafa. The act of filing canot be equated to a misconduct. WHY? To hold otherwise would be precluding any lawyer from instituting case against anyone to PROTECT his personal or proprietary interests.

RULING: DISMISSED.

MERCADO v. VITRIOLO

FACTS:

Rosa F. Mercado filed an admin complaint against Atty Julito Vitriolo seeking disbarment. Complaint alleged that respondent maliciously instituted a criminal case for falsification of public document against her, former client, based confidential info gained from their atty-client relationship.

Complainant is a a Sr. Educ Program Specialist of the Standards Devt Div. while respondent is a Deputy Executive Dir. IV of the CHED. Complainant’s

husband filed an annulment case of their marriage w RTC of Pasig, but was later dismissed by the SC.

It also appeared that respondent filed a criminal action against the complainant for violation of Arts. 171 and 172 of the RPC. Respondent alleged that complainant made FALSE ENTRIES in the Certificates of Live Birth of her children. Complainant allegedly indicated in those certificates that she is married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez, when in truth, she is legally married to a Ruben G. Mercado. But such allegations were denied by Rosa.

Complainant Mercado alleged that the criminal complaint for falsification of pub.docs are confidential facts and info when Atty Vitriolo was the then counsel of complainant. As such,. She alleged that respondent is guilty of breaching their privileged and confidential lawyer-client relationship and should be disbarred.

IBP Board of Governors approved the report of an investigating commissioner finding Atty. VItriolo guilty of violating the rule of privileged communication between atty and client, and recommending his suspension for 1 year.

However, upon receiving a copy of the IBP recomm., complainant wrote CJ Hilario letter of desistance. She stated that she has found forgiveness for those who wronged her.

The Court emphasized that it is NOT bound by any w/drawal of the complaint or desstance by such. It is inconsequential in disbarment proceedings.

ISSUE: WN respondent violated the rule on privileged communication bet. Atty and client when he filed a criminal case for falsification of public doc against his former client

HELD:

ATTY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. Relationship is STRICTLY personal and highly confidential and fiduciary. The relation is of such delicate, exacting and confidential nature that is required by necessity and public interest.

NOTE: The hypothesis is that abstinence from seeking legal advice in a good cause is a evil which is fatal to the admin of justice.

ATTY.-CLIENT PRIVILEGE: An atty. Is to keep inviolate his client’s secrets or confidence and not to abuse them. Thus such duty OUTLASTS the termination of the atty-client rel. and continues even after client’s death.

DEAN WIGMORE FACTORS ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH PRIVILEGE:

1. Where legal advice of any kind is sought2. From a professional legal adviser in his

capacaity as such3. The comms.relating to that purpose 4. Made in confidence5. By the client6. Are at his instance permanently protected7. From disclosure by himself or by the legal

advisor8. Except the protection be waived.

In fine the factors are as follows:

1.There exists an atty-client relationship, or a prospective atty-client rel., and it is by reason of this rel. that the client made the comm.

Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer are PROTECTED by the rule on privileged comm..even if such client dismiss the counsel or the latter declines the employment. WHY? To make the prospective client free to discuss whatever he wishes w the lawyer WITHOUT fear that what he tells the lawyer will be divulged or used against him, and for the lawyer to be equally free to obtain info from the prospective client.

But note: a comm. from a prospective client other than on account of the atty-client relation is NOT privileged. Instructive is the case of Pfeider v. Palanca (re lease agreement on the list of creditors; not because of their professional relation)

2. The client made the comm. in confidence.

The mere relation of atty and client does NOT raise a presumption of confidentiality. The client must intend the communication to be confidential.

CONFIDENTIAL COMM. It is info transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure between atty and client in confidence and by means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses info to no third person other than one reasonably necessary for the transmission of the

info or the accomplishment of the purpose for w/c it was given.

Thus the following are NOT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: (a) Compromise agreement prepared by a lawyer pursuant to the instruction of client; (b) an offer and couter-offer for settlement; (c) doc given by a client to counsel not in professional capacity

3. The legal advice must be sought from the atty in his professional capacity.

Comm made to atty must NOT be for mere info but for the purpose of seeking legal advice from his atty as to his rights or obligations. It must be for the PURPOSE OF SEEKING ADVICE NO OTHER.

Applying all these rules, evidence on record fails to substantiate allegations. All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. The Court cannot be involved in a guessing ga,e as to the existence of facts.

The burden of proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the party asserting the privilege.

RULING: DISMISSED.

ALCALA v. RIVERA

FACTS:

Jose Alcala (deceased) and his wife, Avelina Imperial, filed this present petition for disbarment against Atty. Honesto de Vera, practicing atty in Albay who was retained by them in a civil case entitled Ray Semenchilk v. Jose Alcala.

Complainants charged Atty. De Vera w/ gross negligence and malpractice for having deliberately omitted to notify them of a decision in a civil case resulting in deprivation of their right to appeal from adverse judgment rendered against them and respondent’s indifference, disloyalty and lack of interest in petitioner’s cause resulting to t heir damage and prejudice.

The civil case was an action for annulment of 2 parcels of land filed by the vendee, Ray Semenchuk against Alcala, the vendors, on the ground that lot 1880 could not be located or did not exist, and for recovery of damages.

The trial court rendered judgment rescinding the contract of sale on the ground that the vendee was not able to take material possession if said lot.

That respondent counsel received a copy of the decision but he FAILED TO INFORM his clients. Totally caught by surprise, a sheriff came to complainant’s house to serve a writ of execution.

Less than 5 months, he instituted a civil case for damages against Atty. Honesto de Vera for having failed to inform them of the decision as a result of w/c they lost right to appeal.

HELD:

Not content w/ the civil case complainants instituted a disbarment case as regards:

1. Indifference, loyalty, lack of interest.

-Accdg to the ASC, there is no merit to this charge. If the complaint for rescission prospered it was because complainant Alcala’s failure to comply w/ his obligation of transferring the amterial possession of said lot. Nobody to blame about.

2. Gross negligence and malpractice committed by respondent for failure to inform his clients of the decision.

ISSUE: W/N respondent notified his client the complainants herein , evidence?

HELD:

Atty. Ernesto Alcala wrote to respondent inquiring as steps were taken but respondent chose not to answer the letter. Respondent’s failure to notify his clients, the decision made it sufficient that question in negative. Courts also held that petitioner did not sustain damages a which dismissal answered by friend.

PLAINTIFFS CANNOT RECOVER DAMAGES. No evid.has been presented that they sustained such. Atty De Vera’s is implied acceptance. ATTY IS NOT BOUND TO EXERCISE Extraordinary diligence but ONLY a REASONABLE DEGREE OF CARE . True that petitioner did not appear to have suffered any material or pecuniary damage by the..

SC: Above-quoted provisions are no finding, negligence and carelessness. NOTE: DISBARMENT OF ATTY is not intedned as punishment.

Although such respondent’s negligence does not warrant or suspension under the circumstances of the case, nonetheless it cannot escape a rebuke from usas we hereby protect his clients of the decision.

RULING: GUILTY OF ONLY SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE AND SEVERELYH DITIES AS A LAWYER; Erika as well. DECLARED SEVERELY CENSURE

LIM v. VILLAROSA

Humberto C. Lim filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. NIcanor Villarosa based on the ff cause of action.

That Lumot A. Jalandoni, Chairman and Pres. of PRC (Penta Resorts Corp) was sued before the RTC. It was said that the latter engaged in the legal services of respondent who formally entered as his counsel in an atty-client rel.represented Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The counsel was provided w/ all necessary info relative to the ppty in question and problems involving Hotel Alhambra. However, w/o due notice prior to scheduled hearing, SURPRISINGLY filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel, one day before itse scheduled hearing. On that Motion will conclusively show that no copy thereof was furnished to Lumot Jalandoni, et al. nor does it bear her conformity.

Such notorious act created irreparable deamage and injury to Lumot Jalandoni, et al. since the decision of the RTC proved adverse tot them. A highly meritorious case in favor of his client suddenly suffered unexpected defeat.

GROUNDS FOR W/DRAWAL. That he was a retained counsel of Dennis G. Jalbuena and the latter recommended him to be the counsel of Lumot Jaladoni, et al. It worthy to note that Dennis is the son-in-law of Jalandoni. This retainership agreement consists of Dennis and another representation in a criminal complaint of Carmen Jalbuena and one Vicente Delfin. That 21 days prior to filing of Jalandoni’s Motion to Withdraw he expressly stated and appeared as counsel for both Dennis and Carmen Jalbuena and Delfin for Estafa case filed by PRC.

Thus, he was concurrently representing 2 opposing clients at the same time. The corporation (PRC) field a complaint for estafa (P3.183+M) for the spouses

and Delfin (UCPB mgr). – A palpable and despicable act against his oath.

Respondent had had a payment issued by PRC thru check duly received by his office despite the deliberate withholding of entire case for more than 3 months which eventually withdraw the case.

During the pre-trial hearing of a certain case, respondent brazenly positioned himself beside Atty. Pamplona, counsel of plaintiff, in a suit against his client, coaching on matters as counsel of said client (he was privy to).

Lim also pointed to certain acts of respondent w/c allegedly violated RC – perpetration of falsehood and abuse of his influence as former public prosecutor.

PLEADING – verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and the allegations therein are ture and correct. UNSIGNED PLEADING – a pleading reqd to be verified based on knowledge, info, and belief or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as unsigned pleading.

(Lim is the husband of Cristina Jaladoni, daughter of complainant)

VERSION OF DEFENSE: Repsondent discredited Lim’s claim that he deliberately w/held the records of the cited civil case.

IBP: It is evedent that complainant had a lawyer-client rel. w. the respondent BEFORE the latter was retained as counsel by the Spouses Jalbuena. 6 mos. Suspension. But was reversed by the IBP Board of Governors.

ISSUES:

1. W/N there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and handled by respondent, and

2. W/N respondent properly w/drew his services as counsel for Lim

HELD:

CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In Lim v. Vicente Delfin, Sps. Dennis and Carmen Jalbuena, respondent was counsel for Sps. Jalbuena. Plaintiff Cristina Lim sued the spouses on the basis of 2 checks issued by PRC for construction of Hotel Alhambra. It alleged that the contractor was already paid in full yet the latter

still filed a case for PRC for the unpaid balance (falsification by Carmen Jalbuena)

CANON 15 of the CPR highlights the need for candor, fairness and loyalty in all the dealings of lawyers w/ the clients. RULE 15.03 provides such instruction. (no rep of conflicting interests)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: If the acceptance of the new retainer will require the atty to do anything w/c will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in w/c he represents. It happens in confidential and non-confidential ones.

ANOTHER TEST:

1. If it will prevent an atty from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness, etc. Ex. Rep in the SAME case or in a totally unrelated ones.

2. Whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired in previous employment. Ex. Adverse party against whom the atty appears is his former client in a matter w/c is related, directly or indirectly, ti the present controversy.

The rule prohibits a lawyer from rep.new clients whose interests oppose those former ones in any manner whether or not they are parties in the same action or in totally unrelated cases. IN THE CASE AT BAR: There was a direct or indirect involvement of the parties’ connection to PRC.

REPRESENTATION of a lawyer of conflicting interests WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF ALL PARTIES CONCERNED professional misconduct

WITHDRAWAL AS COUNSEL. NOTE: The termination of atty-client relations can be made by client, lawyer (WRITTEN CONSENT), or by the court (AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING), or reasons beyond control of client or lawyer. CANON 22: Terminate services for GOOD CAUSE.

RETIREMENT FROM CASE: He must serve a copy of his petition upon his client and the adverse party 3 days before the date set for hearing otherwise mere scrap of paper. Respondent made NO SUCH MOVE.

In the case, respondent stopped appearing as Mrs. Jalandoni’s counsel on the very first day of hearing. NO ORDER from the COURT was granted for such.

IMPROPER COLLECTION OF P5k. There was no eveidence that docs were deliberately withheld and there was provision of professional srvs fees. CANON 22, RULE 22.02

RULING: GUILTY OF CANONS 15 AND 22 AND THUS SUSPENDED FOR 1 YR

PORMENTO, SR. v. PONTEVEDRA

FACTS:

Elesio C. Pormento, Sr. charged Atty, Elias Potevedra w/ malpractice and misconduct based on the alleged info.

Complainant alleged that respondent was their family lawyer. Relationship even extends beyond mere lawyer-client relations as they gave respondent moral, spiritual, physical, and financial support in his endeavours.

Complainant claims that respondent, who was his lawyer in said case, DELIBERATELY failed to inform him of the dismissal by the trial court,a s a result thereof, complainant was deprived of his right to appeal said order. Complainant knew the fact when adverse party extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage executed over the parcel of land w/c is subject of suit. He was constrained to hire new lawyer.

Complainant also claims that he was forced to initiate a criminal case for qualified theft against relatives of alleged new owner of said land BUT respondent was the counsel of the accused ins said case. Complainant claims that respondent utilized pieces of confidential info he obtained from complainant while the latter is still his client.

CONTENTION: Took up the cause of the accused in a criminal cases filed by complainant for humanitarian considerations since accused are poor and needy.

HELD:

The court emphasized that it cannot countenanced the act of IBP Board of Governors I merely stating that it is annulling the Commissioner’s recomm and

dismissing the complaint outright w/o stating the facts and the reasons thereof.

RULE 15.03, CANON 15 (Conflict of interest) and corollary to this is Canon 21 w/c enjoins lawyer to preserve confidences and secrets of his clients even after atty-client rel.) PLUS CANON 6 of Canons of professional ethics : That it is the duty of lawyer at the time of retainer to disclose to the client all the circumstances of his relation to the parties and any interst in or connection w/ the controversy.

The reason of such prohibition re conflict of interest is found in the relation of atty and client which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.

In the present case, the Court finds no conflict of interest when respondent rep.herein complanaint’s nephew and other mems of family in an ejectment case and in a criminal case filed by complainant. It was only the respondent who NOTARIZED the DOAS of said land It does not follow that respondent obtained info from complainant and UNOCORROBORATED by evidence.

However, there WAS conflict of inerst in counsel’s representation in a civil case and criminal case re theft for allegedly cutting and stealing coconut trees w/in the premises of said lot. Thus, it CANNOT be denied that respondent became a privy to the doc and the info that complainant possessed w/ r.t said parcel of land.

Repsondent should have declined employment in criminal case to avoid suspicion that he used in the criminal action any info he may have acquired in a Civil case guilty of misconduct

There was no substantial evidence proving contention of complainant re absence of info for his counterclaim.

RULING: Guilty of representing conflict of interests and FINED P10k

GARCIA v. MANUEL

FACTS:

A disbarment complaint filed by Maritess Garcia against respondent Atty Iluminado M. Manuel for gorss misconduct for ineffectively handling her case and failing to returnto he rmoney she gave him.

Maritess Garcia divorced from husband and approached respondent for legal advice concerning child support and her condo unit w/c husband refused to vacate. A retainer agreement then was entered by complainant w/ respondent.

Complainant gave respondent P10k for the filing fees in the ejectment case. She, however, asked respondent as to why the fees cost so much. Respondent replied that it is based on the percentage of the price of ppty and support for the child prayed for.

Several follow-ups were made by complainant but later found out that case has not been filed. An altercation bet.them took place. After serious exchange of words, respondent RETURNED to complainant ALL DOCS. No amount of money was returned by respondent despite the latter’s demand for its return.

HELD:

RULE 1.01

Counsel committed dishonesty and abused the confidence reposed in him by the complainant. He even asked the complainant to raise the filing fee. After receiving the registry return card, he still did not file the ejectment case.

RULE 18.04 (lawyer shall keep client informed)

The lawyer-client relationship being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of the devts of the case.

CANON 16, RULE 16.01 – The highly fiduciary and confidential nature of such relations requires that the lawyer should properly account for all the funds received. It shall be returned to client when became due or upon demand.

RULING: SUSPENDED FOR 6 MOS.

YU v. TAJANLANGIT

FACTS:

Disbarment case against Atty Cesar Tajanlangit by Avito Yu for violation of Rule 18.03 and 16.01 of CPR.

Alleged that he engaged legal svs of respondent as defense counsel in a criminal case that resulted in a conviction against him. After the MR was denied, he erroneously filed a petition for certiorari instead of filing an appeal.

Due to such error, the period to appeal lapsed and complainant was made to suffer imprisonment resulting from his conviction. Respondent then allegedly violated Rule 18.3 and RULE 16.01 FOR FAILURE OF THE RETURN OF BAIL BOND TO HIM FOR P195K after w/drawal of case.

CONTENTION: He was instructed to withdraw the bail and apply the amount as pymt for legal fees and reimbursement for expenses such as telephone exp.

HELD:

AS TO RULE 18.03. Complainant failed to state material dates when his first lawyer, Atty. Lacsamana received the decision vis-à-vis the filing of MR and arrival of second lawyer. It was evident that compalainant singled out respondent and blamed him solely for his conviction. The respondent explained legal basis for the filing of petition for certiotari that a new trial is warranted in re-opening of evidence. RESPONDENT NOT NEGLIGENT.

AS TO RULE 16.01. As to IBP COmmisisoner, respondent was directed to render accounting of the money he had received and to itemize the nature of the legal svs he had rendered incompliance of Rule 16.101 and pay amount of tel bill.

SC: It is improper to apply cash bond s to the pymt for his svs and reimbursement of expenses he had incurred.

RULING: IBP RECOMM AFFRIMED.