5/4/2017 A.C.No.

7965

TodayisThursday,May04,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

A.C.No.7965November13,2013

AZUCENASEGOVIARIBAYA,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.BARTOLOMEC.LAWSIN,Respondent.

RESOLUTION

PERLASBERNABE,J.:

FortheCourtsresolutionisanadministrativecomplaint1filedbyAzucenaSegoviaRibaya(complainant)against
Atty.BartolomeC.Lawsin(respondent),theantecedentsofwhicharedetailedasfollows:

TheFacts

On November 18, 2005, the parties entered into a retainership agreement2 (retainer) whereby respondent
undertook to, inter alia process the registration and eventually deliver, within a period of six (6 ) months,3 the
certificateoftitleoveracertainparcelofland(subjectland)infavorofcomplainantactingastherepresentativeof
theHeirsofthelateIsabelSegovia.Inconnectiontherewith,respondentreceivedfromcomplainanttheamounts
ofP15,000.00andP39,000.004tocoverforthelitigationandlandregistrationexpenses,respectively.

Notwithstanding the expenditure of the P39,000.00 given for registration expenses (subject amount) and the
lapseofmorethanthree(3)yearsfromtheretainersdate,complainantallegedthatrespondent,withoutproper
explanation,failedtofulfillhisundertakingtoregisterthesubjectlandanddelivertocomplainantthecertificateof
title over the same. As complainant was tired of respondents excuses, she finally decided to just withdraw the
subjectamountfromrespondent.Forsuchpurpose,sheconfrontedthelatterathisofficeandalsosubsequently
sent him two (2) demand letters,5 but all to no avail.6 Hence, complainant was prompted to file the instant
administrativecomplaint.

InhisComment,7respondentadmittedthatheindeedreceivedthesubjectamountfromcomplainantbutaverred
thatafterreceivingthesame,thelattersbrother,Erlindo,askedtobereimbursedtheamountofP7,500.00which
thelatterpurportedlypaidtothelandsurveyor.8Respondentlikewiseallegedthathelaterfoundoutthathecould
not perform his undertaking under the retainer because the ownership of the subject land was still under
litigation.9Finally,respondentstatedthathewantedtoreturnthebalanceofthesubjectamounttocomplainant
after deducting what Erlindo took from him, but was only prevented to do so because he was maligned by
complainantwhenshewenttohisofficeandthere,shoutedandcalledhimnamesinthepresenceofhisstaff.10

In the Courts Resolutions dated December 17, 200811 and March 2, 2009,12 the case was referred to the
IntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)forinvestigation,report,andrecommendation.Afterbothpartiesfailedto
appear during the mandatory conference, IBP Investigating Commissioner Atty. Salvador B. Hababag
(InvestigatingCommissioner)requiredthepartiestosubmittheirrespectivepositionpapers.13 Complainant filed
herpositionpaper14onOctober8,2009,whilerespondentfailedtodoso.

TheIBPsReportandRecommendation

On November 6, 2009, the Investigating Commissioner issued his Report and Recommendation,15 finding
respondenttohaveviolatedRules16.01and16.03,Canon16oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility(Code)
forhisfailuretoproperlyaccountforthemoneyentrustedtohimwithoutanyadequateexplanationwhyhecould
not return the same. The Investigating Commissioner found that respondents acts demonstrated his "lack of
candor,fairness,andloyaltytohisclient,whoentrustedhimwithmoneyanddocumentsfortheregistrationofthe
subject land."16 The Investigating Commissioner likewise held that respondents failure to return the subject
amount,despitebeinggiven"adequatetimetoreturn"17thesame,"nottomentiontherepeatedxxxdemands
made upon him,"18 constitutes "gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and even misappropriation of money"19 in

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_7965_2013.html 1/4
5/4/2017 A.C.No.7965

violation of the abovestated rules. In view of the foregoing, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a stern warning that a
repetitionofthesameorsimilaroffensesinthefutureshallbedealtwithmoreseverely.20

InaResolution21datedDecember29,2012,theIBPBoardofGovernorsadoptedandapprovedtheInvestigating
Commissioners Report and Recommendation with modification, ordering the return of the amount of
P31,500.00,22withlegalinterestandwithinthirty(30)daysfromreceiptofnotice,tocomplainant.

TheIssueBeforetheCourt

The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating
Rules16.01and16.03,Canon16oftheCode.

TheCourtsRuling

TheCourtconcurswithandaffirmsthefindingsoftheIBPanentrespondentsadministrativeliabilitybutdeemsit
properto:(a)extendtherecommendedperiodofsuspensionfromthepracticeoflawfromsix(6)monthstoone
(1)yearand(b)deletetherecommendedorderforthereturnoftheamountofP31,500.00.

Anent respondents administrative liability, the Court agrees with the IBP that respondents failure to properly
accountforanddulyreturnhisclientsmoneydespiteduedemandistantamounttoaviolationofRules16.01and
16.03,Canon16oftheCodewhichrespectivelyreadasfollows:

CANON16ALAWYERSHALLHOLDINTRUSTALLMONEYSANDPROPERTIESOFHISCLIENTTHATMAY
COMEINTOHISPOSSESSION.

Rule16.01Alawyershallaccountforallmoneyorpropertycollectedorreceivedfororfromtheclient.

Rule16.03Alawyershalldeliverthefundsandpropertyofhisclientwhendueorupondemand. However,he 1 w p h i1

shallhavealienoverthefundsandmayapplysomuchthereofasmaybenecessarytosatisfyhislawfulfees
anddisbursements,givingnoticepromptlythereaftertohisclient.Heshallalsohavealientothesameextenton
alljudgmentsandexecutionshehassecuredforhisclientasprovidedforintheRulesofCourt.

Records disclose that respondent admitted the receipt of the subject amount from complainant to cover for
pertinentregistrationexpensesbutpositedhisfailuretoreturnthesameduetohisclientsactofconfrontinghim
at his office wherein she shouted and called him names. With the fact of receipt being established, it was then
respondentsobligationtoreturnthemoneyentrustedtohimbycomplainant.Tothisend,sufficeittostatethat
complainantspurportedactof"maligning"respondentdoesnotjustifythelattersfailuretoproperlyaccountfor
andreturnhisclientsmoneyuponduedemand.Verily,alawyersdutytohisclientisoneessentiallyimbuedwith
trust so much so that it is incumbent upon the former to exhaust all reasonable efforts towards its faithful
compliance.Inthiscase,despitethatsingularencounter,respondenthadthereafteralltheopportunitytoreturn
thesubjectamountbutstillfailedtodoso.Besides,theobligatoryforceofsaiddutyshouldnotbedilutedbythe
temperamentoroccasionalfrustrationsofthelawyersclient,especiallysowhenthelatterremainsunsatisfiedby
the lawyers work. Indeed, a lawyer must deal with his client with professional maturity and commit himself
towardstheobjectivefulfillmentofhisresponsibilities.Iftherelationshipisstrained,thecorrectcourseofactionis
forthelawyertoproperlyaccountforhisaffairsaswellastoensurethesmoothturnoverofthecasetoanother
lawyer.Exceptonlyfortheretaininglienexception23underRule16.03,Canon16oftheCode,thelawyershould
not withhold the property of his client. Unfortunately, absent the applicability of such exception or any other
justifiablereasontherefor,respondentstillfailedtoperformhisdutiesunderRules16.01and16.03,Canon16of
theCodewhichperforcewarrantshisadministrativeliability.

TheCourt,however,deemsitpropertoincreasetheIBPsrecommendedperiodofsuspensionfromthepractice
oflawfromsix(6)monthstoone(1)yearinviewofhisconcomitantfailuretoexerciseduediligenceinhandling
hisclientscauseasmandatedbyRules18.03and18.04,Canon18oftheCode:

CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Rule 18.03 A
lawyershallnotneglectalegalmatterentrustedtohim,andhisnegligenceinconnectiontherewithshallrender
himliable.

Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonabletimetotheclient'srequestforinformation.

After a judicious scrutiny of the records, the Court observes that respondent did not only accomplish his
undertaking under the retainer, but likewise failed to give an adequate explanation for such nonperformance
despite the protracted length of time given for him to do so. As such omissions equally showcase respondents
noncompliance with the standard of proficiency required of a lawyer as embodied in the abovecited rules, the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_7965_2013.html 2/4
5/4/2017 A.C.No.7965

Courtdeemsitapttoextendtheperiodofhissuspensionfromthepracticeoflawfromsix(6)monthstoone(1)
yearsimilartothepenaltyimposedinthecaseofDelMundov.Capistrano.24

Asafinalpoint,theCourtmustclarifythattheforegoingresolutionshouldnotincludeadirectiveforthereturnof
the amount of P31,500.00 as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. The same amount was given by
complainant to respondent to cover for registration expenses hence, its return partakes the nature of a purely
civil liability which should not be dealt with during an administrativedisciplinary proceeding. In TriaSamonte v.
Obias,25 the Court recently held that its "findings during administrativedisciplinary proceedings have no bearing
ontheliabilitiesofthepartiesinvolvedwhicharepurelycivilinnaturemeaning,thoseliabilitieswhichhaveno
intrinsic link to the lawyer's professional engagement as the same should be threshed out in a proper
proceeding of such nature." This pronouncement the Court applies to this case and thus, renders a disposition
solelyonrespondentsadministrativeliability.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Bartolome C. Lawsin is found guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon
16, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby
SUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodofone(1)yeareffectiveuponhisreceiptofthisResolutionwith
astemwarningthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractswillbedealtwithmoreseverely.

LetacopyofthisResolutionbefurnishedtheOfficeoftheBarConfidanttheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesand
theOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorforcirculationtoallthecourts.

SOORDERED.

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

ARTUROD.BRION MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

Footnotes
1
Rollo,p.2.DatedJuly21,2008.
2
Id.at6.
3
Id.at6and73.
4
While complainant asserted and the retainer indicates that the amount received for the purpose of
registration expenses was P39,500.00, respondent admitted having received the amount of P39,000.00
only.(SeerespondentsCommentdatedOctober27,2008,id.at16.)
5
Id.at11and12.Thetwo(2)demandlettersweredatedJune21,2007andJuly2,2007,respectively.
6
Id.at7374.
7
Id.at1619.
8
Id.at16.
9
Id.at17.
10
Id.Seealsoid.at7475.
11
Id.at30.
12
Id.at43and44.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_7965_2013.html 3/4
5/4/2017 A.C.No.7965
13
Id.at51.OrderdatedSeptember11,2009.
14
Id.at5261.
15
Id.at7278.
16
Id.at76.
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id.at77.
20
Id.at78.
21
Id.at71.IBPResolutionNo.XX2012629.
22
Thebalancefromtheamountrespondentadmittedlyreceivedfromcomplainant,i.e.,P39,000.00,minus
theamountofP7,500.00,whichtheformerpurportedlyreimbursedtothelattersbrother,Erlindo.
23
"Anattorney'slienisoftwokinds:oneiscalledretainingalienandtheothercharginglien.Theretaining
lienistherightoftheattorneytoretainthefunds,documents,andpapersofhisclientwhichhavelawfully
comeintohispossessionuntilhislawfulfeesanddisbursementshavebeenpaidandtoapplysuchfundsto
the satisfaction thereof. The charging lien is the right which the attorney has upon all judgments for the
payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of said judgments, which he has secured in
litigation of his client. Under this rule, this lien, whether retaining or charging, takes legal effect only from
and after, but not before, notice of said lien has been entered in the record and served on the adverse
party."(Caiav.Hon.Victoriano,105Phil.194,196[1959]citationsomitted)
24
TheCourt,inviewofthelawyersadmissionofhisfailuretoactonhisclientscaseaswellastoaccount
andreturnthefundsentrustedtohim,foundthelattertohaveviolatedRules16.01and16.03,Canon16
andRules18.03and18.04,Canon18oftheCodeandaccordingly,suspendedhimfromthepracticeoflaw
forone(1)year.(SeeA.C.No.6903,April16,2012,669SCRA462.)
25
Asnotedinthiscase,"anexampleofaliabilitywhichhasanintrinsiclinktotheprofessionalengagement
wouldbealawyer'sacceptancefees."(A.C.No.4945,October8,2013.)

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_7965_2013.html 4/4