Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LAWSIN
Facts:
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable for violating
Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code.
Held:
The Supreme Court affirms with the findings of IBP that respondent is
administratively liable but extends IBPs recommendation from 6 months to a year of
suspension due to his failure to comply with Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the
Code. Respondent did not only accomplish his undertaking under the retainer, but
likewise failed to give an explanation for such non-performance despite the length of
time given for him to do so.
Complainant Corporation hired Atty. Nicolas Torres, a medical doctor and a lawyer
by profession, as its Legal and Claims Manager to serve as its legal counsel and to
oversee the administration and management of legal cases and medical- related
claims instituted by seafarers against complainants various principals.
In several cases, complainant issued several checks in different amounts as
settlement of claims of seafarers upon the request of Torres. However, it was later
discovered that Torres never gave the checks to the seafarers and instead had them
deposited at International Exchange Bank, Banawe, Quezon City Branch, under
Account No. 003-10-06902-1.
Complainant filed the present complaint directly to the IBP. The IBP issued an order
requiring Atty. Torres to answer, but he failed to do so. He also failed to appear in a
mandatory conference.
After a judicious perusal of the records, the Supreme Court concurs with the findings
of the IBP in its report and recommendation.
It is fundamental that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly
fiduciary and ascribes to a lawyer a great degree of 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. This is
the standard laid down by Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR.
According to the SC, the IBP Investigating Commissioner correctly found that
complainant had duly proven its charges against respondent. In particular,
complainant had exposed respondents modus operandi of repeatedly requesting
the issuance of checks purportedly for the purpose of settling seafarers claims
against the complainants various principals, only to have such checks deposited to
an unauthorized bank account, particularly International Exchange Bank, Banawe,
Quezon City Branch, under Account No. 003-10-06902-1. It is well-settled that
when a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer
is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent
for a particular purpose. And if he does not use the money for the intended purpose,
the lawyer must immediately return the money to his client. This, respondent failed
to do.