CHAMELYN A. AGOT v. ATTY. LUIS P.

RIVERA
A.M. 8000 05 August 2014 EN BANC(Perlas-Bernabe, J.)

Deception is not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession
but also revealing a basic moral flaw that makes a person unfit to practice law.

Chamelyn A. Agot claimed that she was invited as maid of honor in her
best friend’s wedding at the United States of America. To facilitate the issuance of
her United States (US) visa, Agot sought the services of Atty. Luis Rivera who
represented himself as an immigration lawyer. Agot paid Atty. Riverathe amount of
P350,000.00 as downpayment and agreed to to pay the balance of P350,000.00 after
the issuance of the US visa. However, Atty. Rivera failed to perform his undertaking
within the agreed period. Worse, Agot was not even scheduled for interview in the
US Embassy. It was later found that Atty. Rivera did not specialize in immigration
law but merely had a contact with a purportedly US consul who was supposed to
process the US visa applications for him. Failure to refund the downpayment, Agot
filed a criminal complaint for estafa and the instant administrative complaint against
Atty. Rivera.

ISSUE:

Did Atty. Rivera violate the Code of Professional Responsibility for

mispresenting himself as an immigration lawyer?

RULING:

Yes, Atty. Rivera was found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rules
16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,

OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct.

As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high
standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair
dealing. Undoubtedly, respondent’s deception is not only unacceptable, disgraceful,
and dishonorable to the legal profession but also revealing a basic moral flaw that
makes him unfit to practice law.

UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015

 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.

Also, respondent Atty. Rivera’s failure to perform his obligations under the
Contract, which is to facilitate and secure the issuance of a US visa in favor of
complainant Agot was an inexcusable negligence for which he must be held
administratively liable.

CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS

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

Finally, 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. Such act is a gross violation of
general morality as well as of professional ethics.

UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015

 RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER v.
JUDGE CORAZON D. SOLUREN AND RABINDRANATH A. TUZON
A.M. NO. P-14-3217, 8 October 2014, FIRST DIVISION, (Perlas-Bernabe, J.)

In order to differentiate Grave Misconduct from Simple Misconduct, the elements of

corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule, must be
manifest in the former.

As alleged in the anonymous letter, Judge Corazon D. Soluren had been

instructing the party-litigants to deposit with her court settlement money for various
cases in her sala. Rabindranath Tuzon, a legal researcher, merely acknowledged the
receipt of the money through handwritten notes without issuing any official receipts.
When the parties requested for the release of said money, Tuzon failed to timely
comply with the same. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the
letter to Executive Judge Evelyn A. Turla for discreet investigation and report. She
sent a letter to Tuzon stating that she did not find any act of irregularity or any
unauthorized collection on the part of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Tuzon
admitted his receipt of settlement money for the different cases lodged before Judge
Soluren’s sala. However, he asserted that he accepted said amounts from the parties
who were willing to settle the civil aspect of their respective cases and kept them in
the court’s vault. He did not issue official receipts for he is not an accountable
officer in possession of such receipts. Tuzon also gave various explanations
regarding his failure to timely release the amounts deposited to him. Judge Soluren
was no longer investigated due to her compulsory retirement. OCA found Tuzon
guilty of grave misconduct. It held that accepting fiduciary money for the court’s
safekeeping is not within the scope of Tuzon’s duties. He overstepped his bounds as
legal researcher. In doing so, he disregarded the rules of procedure and the law.

ISSUE:

Were the acts of Tuzon in receiving settlement money and failure to issue
official receipts therefor constitute grave misconduct and therefore should be held
administratively liable?

RULING:

No. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of

action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public
officer. To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must be grave, serious,
important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The misconduct must imply a
wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment and must also have a direct
relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer’s official
duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or
failure to discharge the duties of the office.

UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015

 The OCA correctly found that Tuzon, being a Legal Researcher, was not
authorized to receive any settlement money from party-litigants. Neither was it
shown that Judge Soluren instructed him to receive the same. Having kept the
money in his possession and exercised control over it, Tuzon evidently overstepped
his authority and, thus, committed a form of misconduct.

The Court, however, disagrees with the OCA’s appreciation of the

misconduct’s gravity. Considering the absence of any proof that Tuzon’s actions
were tainted with corruption, or with a clear intent to violate the law, or would
constitute a flagrant disregard of an established rule, Tuzon cannot be held liable for
Grave Misconduct but only for Simple Misconduct which is punishable by
suspension for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months at the
most without pay. That being said, the Court deems it proper to impose the
maximum of the foregoing penalty.

UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015