11/12/21, 9:29 PM A.C. No.

6317

Today is Friday, November 12, 2021

  Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

FIRST DIVISION

A.C. No. 6317 August 31, 2006

LUZVIMINDA C. LIJAUCO, Complainant,

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

On February 13, 2004, an administrative complaint1 was filed by complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco against
respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado for gross misconduct, malpractice and conduct unbecoming of an officer of the
court when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him despite receipt of payment representing attorney’s fees.

According to the complainant, she engaged the services of respondent sometime in January 2001 for P70,000.00 to
assist in recovering her deposit with Planters Development Bank, Buendia, Makati branch in the amount of
P180,000.00 and the release of her foreclosed house and lot located in Calamba, Laguna. The property identified as
Lot No. 408-C-2 and registered as TCT No. T-402119 in the name of said bank is the subject of a petition for the
issuance of a writ of possession then pending before the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna, Branch 24 docketed
as LRC Case No. B-2610.

Complainant alleged that respondent failed to appear before the trial court in the hearing for the issuance of the Writ
of Possession and did not protect her interests in the Compromise Agreement which she subsequently entered into
to end LRC Case No. B-2610.2

Respondent denied the accusations against him. He averred that the P70,000.00 he received from complainant was
payment for legal services for the recovery of the deposit with Planters Development Bank and did not include LRC
Case No. B-2610 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna.

The complaint was referred3 to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. On September 21, 2005, the Investigating Commissioner submitted his report finding respondent
guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provide:

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

Rule 9.02 – A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to
practice law, except:

a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latter’s death, money shall be
paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to the persons specified in the agreement; or

b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or

c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if the plan is based in whole
or in part, on a profit-sharing arrangement.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6317_2006.html 1/4
11/12/21, 9:29 PM A.C. No. 6317

In finding the respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
Investigating Commissioner opined that:

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. To be made the suspension or
disbarment of a lawyer, the charge against him must be established by convincing proof. The record must disclose
as free from doubt a case which compels the exercise by the Supreme Court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious
character of the act done as well as of the motivation thereof must be clearly demonstrated. x x x.

In the instant scenario, despite the strong protestation of respondent that the Php70,000.00 legal fees is purely and
solely for the recovery of the Php180,000.00 savings account of complainant subsequent acts and events say
otherwise, to wit:

1.) The Php70,000.00 legal fees for the recovery of a Php180,000.00 savings deposit is too high;

2.) Respondent actively acted as complainant’s lawyer to effectuate the compromise agreement.

By openly admitting he divided the Php70,000.00 to other individuals as commission/referral fees respondent
violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not divide
or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law. Worst, by luring complainant
to participate in a compromise agreement with a false and misleading assurance that complainant can still recover
after Three (3) years her foreclosed property respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which says a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.4

The Investigating Commissioner thus recommended:

WHEREFORE, finding respondent responsible for aforestated violations to protect the public and the legal
profession from his kind, it is recommended that he be suspended for Six (6) months with a stern warning that
similar acts in the future will be severely dealt with.5

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of the investigating commissioner.6

We agree with the findings of the IBP.

The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show that they possessed and continue to possess the
legal qualifications for it. Indeed, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency
and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal
profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.7

Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct8 and are mandated to
serve their clients with competence and diligence.9 They shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to them, and this
negligence in connection therewith shall render them liable.10

Respondent’s claim that the attorney’s fee pertains only to the recovery of complainant’s savings deposit from
Planter’s Development Bank cannot be sustained. Records show that he acted as complainant’s counsel in the
drafting of the compromise agreement between the latter and the bank relative to LRC Case No. B-2610.
Respondent admitted that he explained the contents of the agreement to complainant before the latter affixed her
signature. Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner observed that the fee of P70,000.00 for legal assistance in the
recovery of the deposit amounting to P180,000.00 is unreasonable. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable
fees.11

Respondent’s disregard for his client’s interests is evident in the iniquitous stipulations in the compromise
agreement where the complainant conceded the validity of the foreclosure of her property; that the redemption
period has already expired thus consolidating ownership in the bank, and that she releases her claims against it.12
As found by the Investigating Commissioner, complainant agreed to these concessions because respondent misled
her to believe that she could still redeem the property after three years from the foreclosure. The duty of a lawyer to
safeguard his client’s interests commences from his retainer until his discharge from the case or the final disposition
of the subject matter of litigation. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and
gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. The canons of the legal profession require that once an attorney
agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.13

Respondent’s admission14 that he divided the legal fees with two other people as a referral fee does not release him
from liability. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to
practice law, except in certain cases.15

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6317_2006.html 2/4
11/12/21, 9:29 PM A.C. No. 6317

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on the
following grounds: 1) deceit; 2) malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office; 3) grossly immoral conduct; 4)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; 5) violation of the lawyer’s oath; 6) willful disobedience to any lawful
order of a superior court; and 7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.

In Santos v. Lazaro16 and Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr.,17 we held that Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility is a basic postulate in legal ethics. When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will
exercise due diligence in protecting his rights. The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention makes
such lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but
also to the legal profession, the courts and society.

A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his client’s case. Once he agrees to handle a case, he
should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer.
Thus, a lawyer should accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle in order to sufficiently protect his
clients’ interests. It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the legal matter; he must also
give adequate attention to his legal work. Utmost fidelity is demanded once counsel agrees to take the cudgels for
his client’s cause.18

In view of the foregoing, we find that suspension from the practice of law for six months is warranted. In addition, he
is directed to return to complainant the amount he received by way of legal fees pursuant to existing
jurisprudence.19

WHEREFORE, Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective from notice,
and STERNLY WARNED that any similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. He is further ordered to
RETURN, within thirty (30) days from notice, the sum of P70,000.00 to complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco and to
submit to this Court proof of his compliance within three (3) days therefrom.

Let copies of this Decision be entered in the record of respondent and served on the IBP, as well as on the Court
Administrator who shall circulate it to all courts for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN

Chief Justice
Chairperson

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice

Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 2-4.

2 Position Paper for Complainant, id. at 49.

3 Id. at 42.

4 Id. at 106-107.

5 Id, at 107.

6 Id. at 102.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6317_2006.html 3/4
11/12/21, 9:29 PM A.C. No. 6317
7 Garcia v. Bala, A.C. No. 5039, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 85, 91.

8 Rule 1.01.

9 Canon 18.

10 Rule 18.03.

11 Canon 20.

12 Rollo, pp. 37-39.

13 Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Dioneda, A.C. No. 5162, March 20, 2003, 399
SCRA 296, 303.
14 Rollo, p. 90.

15 Rule 9.02.

16 445 Phil. 1, 5 (2003).

17 A.C. No. 5655, April 22, 2005, 456 SCRA 508, 514.

18 Abiero v. Juanino A.C. No. 5302, February 18, 2005, 452 SCRA 1, 10.

19 Garcia v. Bala, supra note 7 at 95-96; Ferrer v. Tebelin, A.C. No. 6590, June 27, 2005, 461 SCRA 207,
217; Macarilay v. Seriña, A.C. No. 6591, May 4, 2005, 458 SCRA 12, 26; Dalisay v. Mauricio, supra at 515-
516.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6317_2006.html 4/4