ILUMINADA D. YUZON, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. ARNULFO M.

AGLERON, Respondent. A.C. No. 10684, SECOND DIVISION, January 24,

2018, PERALTA, J.

Jurisprudence is instructive that a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the monies he/she holds for
his/her client gives rise to the presumption that he/she has appropriated the said monies for his/her own
use, to the prejudice and in violation of the trust reposed in him/her by his/her client.

Respondent also violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR) when he failed to return upon demand the amount Iluminada entrusted to him.

FACTS:

Iluminada alleged that sometime on December 23, 2008, she

gave Atty. Agleron the amount of One Million Pesos
(P1,000,000.00) meant for the purchase of a house and a lot of
one Alexander Tenebroso (Alexander), situated at Mati, Davao
Oriental. However, since the intended purchase did not
materialize, Iluminada demanded the return of the aforesaid
amounts that she entrusted to Atty. Agleron, which the latter
failed to return. Atty. Agleron, among others, claims that the
total amount of P438,000.00 was delivered to herein Iluminada on
different occasions, as per her request, and that the balance of
P582,000.00 was never misappropriated and/or converted to the
personal use and benefit of Atty. Agleron as the said amount was
borrowed for the emergency operation of a client who, at that
time has nobody to turn to for help. The IBP Investigating
Commissioner found Atty. Agleron administratively liable and
recommended that he be meted the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law for one (1) year. This ruling is based on Atty.
Agleron's admission that he is still in possession of the amount
of P582,000.00.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Agleron is guilty of violating Canon 16

of CPR.

RULING:

Yes. Jurisprudence is instructive that a lawyer's failure to

return upon demand the monies he/she holds for his/her client
gives rise to the presumption that he/she has appropriated the
said monies for his/her own use, to the prejudice and in
violation of the trust reposed in him/her by his/her client.
Proceeding from the premise that indeed Atty. Agleron merely
wanted to help another client who is going through financial
woes, he, nevertheless, acted in disregard of his duty as a
lawyer with respect to Iluminada. Such act is a gross violation
of general morality, as well as of professional ethics. Further,
respondent also violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he failed to
return upon demand the amount Iluminada entrusted to him, viz.:

CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONIES 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.

xxx

Rule 16.03 — A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his
client when due or upon demand.

Verily, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is

highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and good
faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon
the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or
received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyer's failure to return
upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this
case, 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. Therefore, the Court held respondent held GUILTY of Gross
Misconduct in violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
as well as Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

SUSAN T. DE LEON, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. ANTONIO A.

GERONIMO, Respondent. A.C. No. 10441, SECOND DIVISION, February
14, 2018, PERALTA, J.

Atty. Geronimo’s failure to inform his client of the adverse ruling of the NLRC and the status of the
Motion for Reconsideration filed before the commission violated Canon 17 which provides that a lawyer
owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust reposed to him and Canon 18
which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. A lawyer’s duty of
competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel’s care or
giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or
tribunal, attending schedules hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required
pleadings, prosecuting the handles cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without
waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so. Therefore, a lawyer’s negligence in
fulfilling his duties subjects him to disciplinary action.

FACTS:

A disbarment complaint was filed by Susan De Leon against Atty.

Antonio A. Geronimo for purportedly acts in violation of the
Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Complainant De Leon engaged the services of Atty. Geronimo to
represent her in a labor case, where De Leon’s employees filed
complaints for illegal dismissal and violations of labor
standards against her. The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision
dismissing said complaints against De Leon but ordered her to pay
each of the employees P 5000.00 as financial assistance. Without
being informed by Atty. Geronimo, the NLRC reversed the decision
of the LA ordering De Leon and co-respondents to reinstate the
complainants and pay them more than P 7 Million.

When De Leon received a copy of the Motion for

Reconsideration which Atty. Geronimo prepared, she was
disappointed since the motion was composed of only three pages
and the arguments did not address all the issues in the assailed
decision. Thus, De Leon later filed a Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration before the NLRC. After which, De Leon never heard
anything from his lawyer again. When she wanted to check the
status of the motions, Atty. Geronimo informed her that said
motions had already been denied by the NLRC. When De Leon asked
him if he elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, Atty.
Geronimo said that he did not and when asked why, he stated that
it’s not important as his client did not have any money and
properties.

On the other hand, Atty. Geronimo claims that he exerted his

best defending her before the LA by filing the mandatory
pleadings and supporting documents. In addition, he asserts that
he did everything to explain to his client the consequences if
the NLRC reversed the LA’s decision. After the NLRC reversed the
LA’s decision, he claims that even if De Leon asked for the
entire case records because she would ask another lawyer to
prepare the motion of reconsideration, he still prepared a motion
for reconsideration. In fact, according to him, it was another
lawyer who prepared the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.
When the motions were denied, Atty. Geronimo claims that he
extensively explained the requirements in filing a petition
before the Court of Appeals but it was De Leon’s decision not to
file anymore because she had no more money left in the bank and
she did not own any real property.

The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of

the Philippines (IBP) recommended the suspension of Atty.
Geronimo from the practice of law for six months. The IBP Board
of Governors adopted the aforementioned recommendations but with
modifications suspending Atty. Geronimo for three months.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Geronimo committed acts in violation of the

Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

Yes. In this case, when De Leon received a copy of the

Motion for Reconsideration, she was disappointed that it was only
composed of three pages and the arguments did not address all the
issues in the assailed decision and after Atty. Geronimo provided
her with copies of the LA and NLRC decision, she never heard from
him again. When she called to follow up the status of the
motions, she was furious to learn that not only the motions were
denied by the NLRC, but worse, Atty. Geronimo no longer appealed
to the CA. It is clear that Atty. Geronimo violated Canon 17 and
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibilitywhen he failed to inform his client about the
adverse ruling of the NLRC, thereby depriving her of her right to
exercise an appeal which provides:

CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF

HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL
SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal

matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed

of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to client's request for information.
 A lawyer’s duty of competence and diligence includes
not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel’s
care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of
properly representing the client before any court or
tribunal, attending schedules hearings or conferences,
preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting
the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging
their termination without waiting for the client or the
court to prod him or her to do so. Therefore, a lawyer’s
negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to
disciplinary action.

It is clear in the facts that Atty. Geronimo was

unjustifiably remiss in his bounden duties as De Leon’s
counsel. Atty. Geronimo’s negligence cost De Leon her
entire case and left her with no appellate remedies.
Atty. Geronimo failed to exhaust all possible means to
protect his client’s interests, which is contrary to what
he had sworn to do as a member of the legal profession.