A.C. No. 9615 – 705 Phil. 321 – 692 SCRA 348 – Legal Ethics – Duty To Return Client’s Fund
In 2003, Gloria Jinon engaged the services of Atty. Leonardo Jiz to help her recover a land title from her sister-in-law. Jinon paid Atty. Jiz Php17,000.00 as acceptance fee.
After accepting the case, Atty. Jiz sent demand letters to Jinon’s sister-in-law, collected rents from the tenant of the disputed property, and gave legal advice to Jinon. At the same time, he asked Php45,000.00 from Jinon which he said will be used as expenses in the transfer of title. But Atty. Jiz never made a move to cause the title to be transferred in Jinon’s name.
Eventually, Jinon decided to terminate the services of Atty. Jiz. And since the title was not transferred in her name, she demanded that Atty. Jiz return the Php45,000.00 she earlier paid as well as the rents that Atty. Jiz had been collecting (amounting to Php12,000.00). Atty. Jiz only returned Php5,000.00 from the rent.
Jinon then filed an administrative case against Atty. Jiz. Jinon demanded that Atty. Jiz return the Php45,000.00, the remaining Php7,000.00 rent, as well as the Php17,000.00 acceptance fee.
In his defense, Atty. Jiz averred that Jinon agreed that his services will be worth Php75,000.00; and that his services will only cover the protection of the rights of Jinon against her sister in law and not for the recovery of title. As such, deducting the Php45,000.00 and the acceptance fee of Php17,000.00, Jinon actually still owe Atty. Jiz Php13,000.00.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Leonardo Jiz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Yes, he violated Canons 16 and 18. Atty. Jiz was remiss in his duties as a lawyer in neglecting his client’s case and misappropriating her fund. The defense raised by Atty. Jiz cannot be given credence because it appears that the receipt for the acceptance fee he received from Jinon showed that the Php17 k was the “full payment.” The receipt was even signed by him. Said amount is also sufficient to cover the actual legal services he rendered to Jinon.
Since he was not able to act on the transfer of title, he must return Jinon’s money. 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 lawyer’s 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. Atty. Jiz was suspended for two years.
