EN BANC

[A.C. No. 2591. September 8, 2006.]

LETICIA ADRIMISIN , complainant, vs . ATTY. ROLANDO S. JAVIER ,

respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO , J : p

The Case
On 12 September 1983, Leticia Adrimisin ("complainant") led a complaint-a davit
1 with the Ministry of Justice seeking the disbarment of Atty. Rolando S. Javier
("respondent") for deceit and misrepresentation.
The Facts
Complainant alleges that on 12 July 1983, she was introduced by her cousin, Pablo
Adrimisin, to respondent. She needed the help of a lawyer in having her son-in-law, Alfredo
Monterde ("Monterde"), who was charged with the crime of quali ed theft, released from
the Caloocan City Jail. Complainant claims that respondent advised her to le a bail bond.
Complainant informed respondent that her only money was P500. Complainant contends
that respondent received the money, issued a receipt 2 and promised that Monterde would
be released from jail the following day.
Complainant also alleges that respondent failed to keep his promise in having
Monterde released. Complainant went to respondent's o ce several times but it seemed
that respondent was avoiding her. Monterde was later released upon settlement of the
case with his employer. Complainant claims that she demanded for the return of the P500
but respondent failed to return this amount.
Respondent did not le any comment or answer. He only appeared in the
investigative hearings conducted by the O ce of the Solicitor General ("OSG").
Respondent, in his testimony, claims he was not hired by complainant as legal counsel.
Respondent alleges complainant only asked his help to secure a bail bond. 3 Respondent
admits he received P500 for the bail bond and called up Carlos Alberto ("Alberto"), an
insurance agent. 4 Respondent claims he gave the P500 to Alberto. However, the amount
was not su cient to pay for the bond. 5 Respondent denies that he promised to have
Monterde released immediately. 6 Respondent claims he advised complainant to get back
her money directly from Alberto. 7
Alberto, the insurance agent, was presented during the hearing. He testi ed that on
20 July 1983, respondent came to him to secure a bail bond for quali ed theft. 8 Alberto
showed a copy of the personal bail bond dated 20 July 1983, issued by Philippine Phoenix
Surety & Insurance, Inc. ("Philippine Phoenix Surety") with a premium of P940 and costs of
documentary stamps, notarial fees and clearances at P279 for a total of P1,219. 9 Alberto
claimed he issued a genuine bond but it was not led in court because complainant failed
to pay the balance. 1 0 He also testi ed that Pablo Adrimisin asked for the refund of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 P500 but the amount could not be refunded due to expenses already incurred and
forfeiture of the remainder in favor of Alberto's office. 1 1
The bail bond which was marked as Exhibit "1" contained a stamped "Limitation of
Liability" clause. The clause states "Authorized limit of the bond shall not exceed P20,000
and it is not valid for theft and robbery cases." 1 2 The portion "Not valid for theft and
robbery cases" was deleted with a marking pen but this cancellation was not signed or
initialed. Alberto was asked why the cancellation was unsigned. Alberto replied that he had
no knowledge on who made the stamp or the cancellation. 1 3 When asked if it is the policy
of Philippine Phoenix Surety not to post personal bail bond with respect to theft and
robbery cases, Alberto answered in the affirmative. 1 4
Alberto also clari ed that he is not connected with Philippine Phoenix Surety but he
is an employee of the House of Bonds, which is the general agent of the former. 1 5
Mr. Alfredo Brigoli ("Brigoli"), General Manager of the House of Bonds, was also
presented as one of respondent's witnesses. Brigoli explained that he gives Alberto 5 sets
of pre-signed bail bond forms. 1 6 However, in theft, robbery and drug cases, Alberto is
required to seek his approval before the bond is issued. ETHSAI

Brigoli testi ed that it was Alberto's daughter who called him up for approval to
issue a bond for quali ed theft. 1 7 He informed Alberto's daughter to bring the original
bond and its duplicate copies to his o ce in Intramuros for his signature, but the same
was not done. 1 8 Due to the lack of his signature, Brigoli claimed that the bond has not
been approved. 1 9 Brigoli also testi ed that since the bond was not forwarded to his
office, the same was not recorded and the payment was not remitted.
The OSG's Report and Recommendation
The OSG's Investigating Solicitor Antonio G. Castro heard the case and submitted a
Report and Recommendation ("Report"). The OSG recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for not less than one year. The Report reads:
The charge of deceit and misrepresentation against respondent has been
su ciently established. Respondent himself admits that he received from
complainant the sum of P500.00 for the bail bond of complainant's son-in-law
Alfredo Monterde; that he failed to secure Monterde's release from jail; and that he
did not return the sum of P500.00 to complainant (pp. 9-20, tsn, March 14, 1985).

xxx xxx xxx

Respondent's defense that he actually secured a bail bond for Monterde is

a mere afterthought. Firstly, complainant con ded to him that she had no more
money except P500.00. He would not, therefore, secure a bail bond with higher
premium than P500.00.

Secondly, while he declared that the records of Monterde's case in the

Regional Trial Court in Caloocan City, Branch XXV, sala of Judge Oscar Herrera
showed that the recommended bail was P8,000.00 (pp. 8-9, tsn, March 14, 1985),
the personal bail bond, marked as Exhibit "1", which was allegedly prepared, was
for P9,400.00 (Exh. "1", p. 7, Folder of Exhs.).
Thirdly, respondent's witness, Alfredo Brigoli, the general manager of the
AAF House of Bonds, admitted that Exhibit "1" was not nally approved. On cross-
examination, he declared:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 "Q Have you signed that as finally approved?

A No, sir. When they called up asking for my signature on the deleted portion
of the bond, Mr. Alberto never came to my office.

Q In other words that bond has not been finally approved.

A Not finally approved because there is no signature yet."

(p. 20, tsn, Sept. 30, 1985).

As held by this Honorable Court in Royong v. Oblena , 7 SCRA 859, 868-869

(1963), "The respondent's misconduct, although unrelated to his o ce, may
constitute su cient grounds for disbarment." And in Quingwa v. Puno , 19 SCRA
439, 445 (1967), it also held that, "Indeed, it is important that members of this
ancient and learned profession of law must conform themselves in accordance
with the highest standards of morality."

Speci cally, for deceit and misrepresentation, respondent may be

suspended or disbarred (In re Paraiso, 41 Phil. 24, 25 [1920]). 2 0

The Court's Ruling

The Court nds respondent liable for violation of Canon 16 and Rule 18.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility ("Code"). The Code mandates every lawyer to hold in
trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. 2 1
Consequently, a lawyer should account for the money received from a client. 2 2 The Code
also enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, 2 3 and his negligence
in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Respondent himself admitted the receipt of P500 from complainant as payment for
the bail bond as shown in his testimony and in Exhibit "A". By his receipt of the amount,
respondent agreed to take up complainant's cause and owed delity to complainant and
her cause, even if complainant never paid any fee. Lawyering is not a business. It is a
profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. 2 4
Respondent claims that on 12 July 1983, he called up Alberto for the issuance of the
bail bond but it took 8 days before the bail bond was prepared. In failing to immediately
secure the bail bond, respondent clearly neglected to exercise ordinary diligence or that
reasonable degree of care and skill required by the circumstances.
There were also irregularities in the personal bail bond. Firstly, it was issued on 20
July 1983 but notarized sometime in 1984 as seen in the Notarial Certi cate. The Court
therefore agrees with OSG's nding that respondent's defense that he secured a bail bond
was a mere afterthought. Furthermore, complainant led her complaint on 12 September
1983, which means that the bond was notarized only after the complaint was led.
Secondly, the bail bond was not valid for theft and robbery cases. Although there was a
cancellation of such phrase through marking pen, the same was not countersigned, and
hence the cancellation was void. Thirdly, the payment for the bond was not recorded and
neither was it remitted to the issuer of the bond. This means that the bond was a mere
piece of paper without any value for it failed to serve its purpose.
Complainant demanded for the return of the P500 but respondent kept on insisting
that complainant seek refund from Alberto. Respondent has the duty to account for the
money entrusted to him by complainant. In Pariñas v. Paguinto , 2 5 we held that "a lawyer
shall account for all money or property collected from the client. Money entrusted to a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 lawyer for a speci c purpose, such as for ling fee, but not used for failure to le the case
must immediately be returned to the client on demand." In the present case, money for the
payment of the bond's premium was not used for the purpose intended. Hence,
respondent must return the amount to complainant upon demand.
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 in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general
morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public con dence in the legal
profession and deserves punishment. 2 6

This is not the rst time respondent is found to have unlawfully withheld and
misappropriated money. In Igual v. Javier , 2 7 the Court held that respondent had
unjusti ably refused to return Igual's money upon demand and his absence of integrity
was highlighted by his "half-baked excuses, hoary pretenses and blatant lies in his
testimony before the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline." The Court suspended Javier from
the practice of law for a period of one month and ordered him to restitute the amount of
P7,000 to Igual. In that case, we reminded respondent that he was "expected to always live
up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility for the
relationship between an attorney and his client is highly duciary in nature and demands
utmost fidelity and good faith." 2 8
We reiterate this reminder. Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in
gross violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public con dence in the
legal profession. 2 9 Those who are guilty of such infraction may be disbarred or
suspended from the practice of law. 3 0
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Rolando S. Javier from the practice of law for SIX
MONTHS effective upon nality of this Decision. We ORDER respondent to restitute
complainant Leticia Adrimisin the Five Hundred Pesos (P500) with legal interest computed
from 12 September 1983 until full payment. Respondent shall submit to the Court proof of
restitution within ten (10) days from payment.
Let copies of this resolution be furnished the O ce of the Bar Con dant to be
appended to respondent's personal record, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The
Court Administrator shall furnish copies to all courts of the land for their information and
guidance. aETASc

SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-
Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia and
Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-4.
2. Rollo, p. 5 and Exhibit "A," exhibits for complainant and respondent, p. 1.
3. TSN, 8 April 1985, p. 11.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 4. Id. at 12-13.
5. Id. at 25.
6. Id. at 28-29.
7. Id. at 34.
8. TSN, 15 August 1985, p. 25.

9. Id. at 10-13.
10. Id. at 16.
11. Id. at 29.
12. Exhibit "1," exhibits for complainant and respondent, p. 7.
13. TSN, supra note 8, at 46-47.

14. Id. at 48.

15. Id. at 41-43.
16. TSN, 30 September 1985, pp. 7-8.
17. Id. at 10.
18. Id.
19. Id. at 20.
20. Rollo, pp. 21-25.
21. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 16.
22. Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 16.01.

23. Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 18.03.

24. Burbe v. Magulta, 432 Phil. 840, 850 (2002).
25. A.C. No. 6297, 13 July 2004, 434 SCRA 179, 183.
26. R. AGPALO, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 242 (2002 ed.)
27. 324 Phil. 698, 709 (1996).

28. Id.
29. Sipin-Nabor v. Baterina, 412 Phil. 419, 424 (2001).
30. Espiritu v. Ulep, A.C. No. 5808, 4 May 2005, 458 SCRA 1, 9.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com