PALE Segovia Ribaya v. Atty. Lansin

A.C. No.
7965 November 13, 2013
AZUCENA SEGOVIA-RIBAYA
vs.
ATTY. BARTOLOME C. LAWSIN
Ponente: PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Violation: Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18
Penalty: 1 yr. suspension
Facts:
The parties entered into a retainership agreement (retainer) whereby respondent undertook to process the
registration and eventually deliver, within a period of six (6 ) months, the certificate of title over a certain parcel of land
(subject land) in favor of complainant acting as the representative of the Heirs of the late Isabel Segovia. In
connection therewith, respondent received from complainant the amounts of P15,000.00 and P39,000.00 to
cover for the litigation and land registration expenses, respectively.
Complainant:
Notwithstanding the expenditure of the P39,000.00 given for registration expenses (subject amount) and the
lapse of more than three (3) years from the retainer’s date, complainant alleged that respondent, without
proper explanation, failed to fulfill his undertaking to register the subject land and deliver to complainant the
certificate of title over the same. As complainant was tired of respondent’s excuses, she finally decided to just
withdraw the subject amount from respondent. For such purpose, she confronted the latter at his office and also
subsequently sent him two (2) demand letters, but all to no avail. Hence, complainant was prompted to file the instant
administrative complaint.
Respondent:
Admitted that he indeed received the subject amount from complainant but averred that after receiving the
same, the latter’s brother, Erlindo, asked to be reimbursed the amount of P7,500.00 which the latter
purportedly paid to the land surveyor. Respondent likewise alleged that he later found out that he could not
perform his undertaking under the retainer because the ownership of the subject land was still under litigation.
Finally, respondent stated that he wanted to return the balance of the subject amount to complainant after deducting
what Erlindo took from him, but was only prevented to do so because he was maligned by complainant when she
went to his office and there, shouted and called him names in the presence of his staff.
IBP CBD: 6 months suspension
IBP BOG: adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation with modification,
ordering the return of the amount of P31,500.00 with legal interest and within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice, to
complainant.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon
16 of the Code.
Held:
Yes. Anent respondent’s administrative liability, the Court agrees with the IBP that respondent’s failure to
properly account for and duly return his client’s money despite due demand is tantamount to a violation of Rules
16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code.
Records disclose that respondent admitted the receipt of the subject amount from complainant to cover for
pertinent registration expenses but posited his failure to return the same due to his client’s act of confronting him at
his office wherein she shouted and called him names. With the fact of receipt being established, it was then
respondent’s obligation to return the money entrusted to him by complainant. To this end, suffice it to state
that complainant’s purported act of "maligning" respondent does not justify the latter’s failure to properly
account for and return his client’s money upon due demand. Verily, a lawyer’s duty to his client is one essentially
imbued with trust so much so that it is incumbent upon the former to exhaust all reasonable efforts towards its faithful
compliance. In this case, despite that singular encounter, respondent had thereafter all the opportunity to
return the subject amount but still failed to do so. Besides, the obligatory force of said duty should not be diluted
by the temperament or occasional frustrations of the lawyer’s client, especially so when the latter remains unsatisfied
by the lawyer’s work. Indeed, a lawyer must deal with his client with professional maturity and commit himself
towards the objective fulfillment of his responsibilities. If the relationship is strained, the correct course of
action is for the lawyer to properly account for his affairs as well as to ensure the smooth turn-over of the
case to another lawyer. Except only for the retaining lien exceptionunder Rule 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code,
the lawyer should not withhold the property of his client. Unfortunately, absent the applicability of such exception
or any other justifiable reason therefor, respondent still failed to perform his duties under Rules 16.01 and 16.03,
Canon 16 of the Code which perforce warrants his administrative liability.
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 non-
performance despite the protracted length of time given for him to do so. As such omissions equally showcase
respondent’s non-compliance with the standard of proficiency required of a lawyer as embodied in the above-cited
rules, the Court deems it apt to extend the period of his suspension from the practice of law from six (6) months to
one (1) year similar to the penalty imposed in the case of Del Mundo v. Capistrano.
As a final point, the Court must clarify that the foregoing resolution should not include a directive for
the return of 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 administrative-disciplinary proceeding. In Tria-
Samonte v. Obias, the Court recently held that its "findings during administrative-disciplinary proceedings have
no bearing on the liabilities of the parties involved which are purely civil in nature – meaning, those liabilities
which have no 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 solely on respondent’s administrative liability.

PALE Segovia Ribaya v. Atty. Lansin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PALE Segovia Ribaya v. Atty. Lansin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PALE Segovia Ribaya v. Atty. Lansin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No.

7965 November 13, 2013

Ponente: PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

IBP CBD: 6 months suspension

You might also like