Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARITES E. FREEMAN v. ATTY. ZENAIDA P. REYES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 10579 2014-12-10	ERLINDA FOSTER v. ATTY. JAIME V. AGTANG PER CURIAM
It is clear that respondent failed to fulfill this duty. As pointed out, he received various amounts from complainant but he could not account for all of them. Worse, he could not deny the authenticity of the receipts presented by complainant. Upon demand, he failed to return the excess money from the alleged filing fees and other expenses. His possession gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by, the client.[30] When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for the intended purpose. Consequently, if the lawyer does not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to the client.[31]
	AC. No. 10438 2014-09-23	CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED v. NICOLAS C. TORRES PER CURIAM
Anent the proper penalty for respondent's acts, the Court deems it proper to modify the penalty recommended by the IBP. Jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers misappropriated their clients' money, the Court imposed upon them the ultimate penalty of disbarment from the practice of law. In Arellano University, Inc. v. Mijares III,[30] the Court disbarred the lawyer for misappropriating his client's money intended for securing a certificate of title on the latter's behalf. Similarly, in Freeman v. Reyes,[31] the same penalty was imposed upon the lawyer who misappropriated the insurance proceeds of her client's deceased husband.
	AC. No. 9872 2014-01-28	NATIVIDAD P. NAVARRO v. ATTY. IVAN M. SOLIDUM PER CURIAM
We modify the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors imposing on respondent the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years. Given the facts of the case, we see no reason to deviate from the recommendation of the IBP-CBD imposing on respondent the penalty of disbarment. Respondent failed to live up to the high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing required of him as a member of the legal profession.[7] Instead, respondent employed his knowledge and skill of the law and took advantage of his client to secure undue gains for himself[8] that warrants his removal from the practice of law. Likewise, we cannot sustain the IBP Board of Governors' recommendation ordering respondent to return his unpaid obligation to complainants, except for advances for the expenses he received from his client, Presbitero, that were not accounted at all. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar.[9] Our only concern is the determination of respondent's administrative liability.[10] Our findings have no material bearing on other judicial action which the parties may choose to file against each other.[11] Nevertheless, when a lawyer receives money from a client for a particular purpose involving the client-attorney relationship, he is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for that particular purpose.[12] If the lawyer does not use the money for the intended purpose, he must immediately return the money to his client.[13] Respondent was given an opportunity to render an accounting, and he failed. He must return the full amount of the advances given him by Presbitero, amounting to P50,000.
	AC. No. 4191 2013-06-10	ANITA C. PENA v. ATTY. CHRISTINA C. PATERNO PER CURIAM
The criminal case of estafa from which respondent was acquitted, as her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, is different from this administrative case, and each must be disposed of according to the facts and the law applicable to each case.[26] Section 5,[27] in relation to Sections 1[28] and 2,[29] Rule 133, Rules of Court states that in administrative cases, only substantial evidence is required, not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases, or preponderance of evidence as in civil cases. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[30]