MARY MALECDAN vs.

PEKAS and KOLLIN

A.C. No. 5830. January 26, 2004
Facts:
Atty Pekas and Kollin substituted Atty. Bustamante as a counsels for the
Fanged Spouses.
Petitioner Malecdan bought a parcel of land located in Baguio City from the
Fanged spouses.
The money was received by Eliza Fanged and deposited in the account of
Atty. Artemio
Bustamante, then counsel for the latter. The complainant later found out,
however, that the said
lot was the subject of a controversy between the former owners and the
Fanged Spouses.
Then Kollin replaced Bustamante. He filed for a petition for rescission over
the contract of sale,
without returning the amount of money to Malecdan. While Malecdan was in
the US, the Fanged
spouses, Atty Bustamante and the PCIB (bank) signed a compromised
contract, and Malecdan
was not made a signatory to such contract. They caused the transfer of P30K
from the account
of Bustamante to a separate account for Kollin and Pekas as attorney’s fees.
Now, Malecdan files a case for disbarment against Kollin and Pekas, because
not only was she
prejudiced from such withdrawal of money, but they also committed acts
against the IBP in
contravention/violation to the lawyer’s oath that they shall uphold the laws
of the land.
Issue:
WON Kollin and Pekas should be suspended? YES
Held:
It is a settled principle that the compensation of a lawyer should be but a
mere incident of the
practice of law, the primary purpose of which is to render public service. The
practice of law is a
profession and not a money-making trade. The process of imbibing ethical
standards can begin
with the simple act of openness and candor in dealing with clients, which
would progress
thereafter towards the ideal that a lawyer’s vocation is not synonymous with
an ordinary
business proposition but a serious matter of public interest.
DECISION: Pekas suspended for 6 months, Kollin for 3 years
DOMINADOR P. BURBE VS. ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA
AC NO. 99-634. JUNE 10, 2002
Monday, February 23, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Legal Ethics

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 the status of his case. Petitioner made several follow-ups in the lawyer’s
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 prosecutor’s 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
petitioner’s 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 complainant’s 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.”