DOMINADOR P. BURBE VS. ATTY. ALBERTO C.
MAGULTA
AC NO. 99-634. JUNE 10, 2002
Facts:
Petitioner engaged the services of the respondent to help
him recover a claim of money against a creditor.
Respondent prepared demand letters for the petitioner,
which were not successful and so the former intimated
that a case should already be filed. As a result, petitioner
paid the lawyer his fees and included also amounts for
the filing of the case.
A couple of months passed but the petitioner has not yet
received any feedback as to thex status of his case.
Petitioner made several follow-ups in the lawyers office
but to no avail. The lawyer, to prove that the case has
already been filed even invited petitioner to come with
him to the Justice Hall to verify the status of the case.
Petitioner was made to wait for hours in the prosecutors
office while the lawyer allegedly went to the Clerk of
Court to inquire about the case. The lawyer went back to
the petitioner with the news that the Clerk of Court was
absent that day.
Suspicious of the acts of the lawyer, petitioner personally
went to the office of the clerk of court to see for himself
the status of his case. Petitioner found out that no such
case has been filed.
Petitioner confronted Atty. Magulta where he continued to
lie to with the excuse that the delay was being caused by
the court personnel, and only when shown the
certification did he admit that he has not at all filed the
complaint because he had spent the money for the filing
fee for his own purpose; and to appease petitioners
feelings, he offered to reimburse him by issuing two (2)
checks, postdated June 1 and June 5, 1999, in the
amounts of P12,000.00 and P8,000.00, respectively.
Issue:
Whether or not the lawyer should be disbarred.
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP as follows: It is
evident that the P25,000 deposited by complainant with
the Respicio Law Office was for the filing fees of the
Regwill complaint. With complainants deposit of the filing
fees for the Regwill complaint, a corresponding obligation
on the part of respondent was created and that was to
file the Regwill complaint within the time frame
contemplated by his client. The failure of respondent to
fulfill this obligation due to his misuse of the filing fees
deposited by complainant, and his attempts to cover up
this misuse of funds of the client, which caused
complainant additional damage and prejudice,
constitutes highly dishonest conduct on his part,
unbecoming a member of the law profession. The
subsequent reimbursement by the respondent of part of
the money deposited by complainant for filing fees, does
not exculpate the respondent for his misappropriation of
said funds.

Bautista vs Gonzales [A.M. No. 1625. February 12, 1990]
FACTS:
In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista, respondent
Ramon A. Gonzales was charged with malpractice, deceit, gross
misconduct and violation of lawyers oath. Required by this Court
to answer the charges against him, respondent filed a motion for
a bill of particulars asking this Court to order complainant to
amend his complaint by making his charges more definite. In a
resolution the Court granted respondents motion and required
complainant to file an amended complaint. Complainant
submitted an amended complaint for disbarment, alleging that
respondent committed the following acts:
1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely,
Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado and Editha Fortunado
[hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to pay all expenses,
including court fees, for a contingent fee of fifty percent (50%) of
the value of the property in litigation.
xxx
4. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a
contract with him on August 30, 1971 for the development into a
residential subdivision of the land involved in Civil Case No. Q-
15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929, claiming that he acquired
fifty percent (50%) interest thereof as attorneys fees from the
Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said property was
already sold at a public auction on June 30, 1971, by the
Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del Norte and registered with the
Register of Deeds of Iligan City;
xxx
Pertinent to No. 4 above, the contract, in No. 1 above, reads:
We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee, provided,
you [respondent Ramon Gonzales] defray all expenses, for the
suit, including court fees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed serious misconduct
involving a champertous contract.
HELD:
YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for six (6)
months.
RATIO:
The Court finds that the agreement between the respondent and
the Fortunados contrary to Canon 42 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics which provides that a lawyer may not properly
agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation. [See
also Rule 16.04, Code of Professional Responsibility]. Although a
lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the
same should be subject to reimbursement. The agreement
between respondent and the Fortunados, however, does not
provide for reimbursement to respondent of litigation expenses
paid by him. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay
expenses of proceedings to enforce the clients rights is
champertous [citation omitted]. Such agreements are against
public policy especially where, as in this case, the attorney has
agreed to carry on the action at his own expense in consideration
of some bargain to have part of the thing in dispute [citation
omitted]. The execution of these contracts violates the fiduciary
relationship between the lawyer and his client, for which the
former must incur administrative sanctions.