A.C. No. 9872 – 725 Phil. 358 – 714 SCRA 586 – Legal Ethics – Duty of Lawyer to Account for Client’s Money
Canon 16 applies sans lawyer-client relationship
In April 2006, Hilda Presbitero engaged the services of Atty. Ivan Solidum, Jr. to help her in the quieting of her title over a parcel of land. Presbitero paid Solidum P50,000.00 as acceptance fee.
In May 2006, Ma. Theresa Yulo, daughter of Presbitero also engaged the services of Solidum for the registration of a parcel of land. Yulo however asked the help of her sister, Natividad Navarro, to finance the case. Hence, Navarro gave Solidum Php200,000.00 for the registration expenses.
Meanwhile, Solidum in May and June 2006, obtained a total of Php2 million from Navarro. The loan was covered by two Memorandum of Agreement (MOAs). The MOA was prepared by Solidum. The MOA stated that the monthly interest shall be 10%.
Solidum also borrowed Php1M from Presbitero during the same period. He again drafted a MOA containing the same terms and conditions as with Navarro. As additional security for the loan, Solidum mortgaged his 263-hectare land for P1 million in favor of Presbitero.
Nothing happened in the quieting of title case filed by Presbitero since Solidum did nothing after receiving the acceptance fee.
In the land registration case of Yulo financed by Navarro, Navarro later found out that the land was already registered to someone else. Navarro claims that she should not have financed the case if only Solidum advised her of the status of the land.
Anent the loans, Solidum failed to pay them. Instead, he questioned the terms of the loans as he claimed that the interest rate of said loans at 10% is unconscionable.
Navarro and Presbitero later filed an administrative case against Solidum.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ivan Solidum, Jr. should be disbarred.
HELD: Yes.
Although Solidum acted in his private capacity when he obtained a total of Php3 million from Navarro and Presbitero, he may still be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. In this case, such act displayed by Solidum merited his disbarment.
Solidum is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct, both in his professional capacity with respect to his client, Presbitero, and in his private capacity with respect to Navarro. Both Presbitero and Navarro allowed Splidum to draft the terms of the loan agreements. Solidum drafted the MOAs knowing that the interest rates were exorbitant. Later, using his knowledge of the law, he assailed the validity of the same MOAs he prepared.
In the case of Navarro, who financed the Yulo case, Solidum also violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. This is notwithstanding the fact that Navarro is not actually his client in the Yulo case but was only the financier of the Yulo case.
In Presbitero’s case, since Presbitero is his client, Solidum also violated Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Even though Solidum secured the loan with a mortgage and a MOA, Presbitero’s interest was not fully protected because the property Solidum mortgaged was overvalued. He claimed that his 263-hectare land was worth P1 million but in fact Solidum sold it later for only P150,000.00. Clearly, Presbitero was disadvantaged by Solidum’s ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation. He took advantage of his knowledge of the law as well as the trust and confidence reposed in him by his client.
Solidum was disbarred by the Supreme Court.
