Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4K views

    Burbe vs. Magulta AC #99-634 - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nimpa Pichay
    Atty. Magulta agreed to represent Dominador Burbe in a legal case, and was paid P25,000 for legal fees and filing costs. However, Atty. Magulta did not file the complaint and instead spent the filing fee money. When Burbe investigated, he discovered no case had been filed. Atty. Magulta admitted to misusing the funds and offered to repay Burbe, but the court still found him liable for misrepresentation and violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to hold client funds in trust. Spending client funds without consent is considered misconduct regardless of any later repayment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Burbe vs. Magulta AC #99-634 - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nimpa Pichay
    4K views1 page
    Atty. Magulta agreed to represent Dominador Burbe in a legal case, and was paid P25,000 for legal fees and filing costs. However, Atty. Magulta did not file the complaint and instead spent the filing fee money. When Burbe investigated, he discovered no case had been filed. Atty. Magulta admitted to misusing the funds and offered to repay Burbe, but the court still found him liable for misrepresentation and violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to hold client funds in trust. Spending client funds without consent is considered misconduct regardless of any later repayment.

    Original Description:

    PALE

    Original Title

    Burbe vs. Magulta AC #99-634_digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Atty. Magulta agreed to represent Dominador Burbe in a legal case, and was paid P25,000 for legal fees and filing costs. However, Atty. Magulta did not file the complaint and instead spent the filing fee money. When Burbe investigated, he discovered no case had been filed. Atty. Magulta admitted to misusing the funds and offered to repay Burbe, but the court still found him liable for misrepresentation and violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to hold client funds in trust. Spending client funds without consent is considered misconduct regardless of any later repayment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4K views1 page

    Burbe vs. Magulta AC #99-634 - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Nimpa Pichay
    Atty. Magulta agreed to represent Dominador Burbe in a legal case, and was paid P25,000 for legal fees and filing costs. However, Atty. Magulta did not file the complaint and instead spent the filing fee money. When Burbe investigated, he discovered no case had been filed. Atty. Magulta admitted to misusing the funds and offered to repay Burbe, but the court still found him liable for misrepresentation and violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to hold client funds in trust. Spending client funds without consent is considered misconduct regardless of any later repayment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DOMINADOR P. BURBE vs. ATTY. ALBERTO C.

    MAGULTA
    AC No. 99-634. June 10, 2002


    FACTS:

    On September 1998, respondent agreed to legally represent petitioner Dominador Burbe in a money
    claim and possible civil case against certain parties for breach of contract. In consequence to such
    agreement, Atty. Alberto C. Magulta prepared the demand letter and some other legal papers, for which
    services he was accordingly paid and an amount of P25,000.00 for the required filing fee. A week later,
    petitioner was informed by the respondent that the complaint had already been filed in court, and that he
    should receive notice of its progress. The petitioner waited for several months for the notice from the
    court but there was no progress in the case, he was also inquired repeatedly in the respondents Law
    Office, however he was told to just wait.

    The petitioner decided to go to the Office of the Clerk of Court with the draft of Atty. Magultas complaint
    to personally verify the progress of the case, and there told that there was no record at all of a case filed
    by Atty. Alberto C. Magulta on his behalf, copy of the Certification dated May 27, 1999. As such, the
    petitioner confronted the latter. The respondent admitted that he has not at all filed the complaint because
    he had spent the money for the filing fee for his own purpose 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.

    The petitioner filed a case against Atty. Magulta for misrepresentation, dishonesty and oppressive
    conduct. The respondent denied the allegations and alleged that he was never been paid by complainant
    for his acceptance and legal fees and that the amount he had paid was a deposit for the acceptance fee


    ISSUE:
    Whether or not respondent Atty. Magulta is liable for misrepresentation of funds given to him for the
    filing fee.


    HELD:
    YES. Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that lawyers shall hold in trust all
    moneys of their clients and properties that may come into their possession.
    Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of professional ethics and are
    guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. It may be true that they have a lien upon the
    clients funds, documents and other papers that have lawfully come into their possession; that they may
    retain them until their lawful fees and disbursements have been paid; and that they may apply such funds
    to the satisfaction of such fees and disbursements. However, these considerations do not relieve them of
    their duty to promptly account for the moneys they received. Their failure to do so constitutes professional
    misconduct. In any event, they must still exert all effort to protect their clients interest within the bounds of
    law.
    Respondent fell short of this standard when he converted into his legal fees the filing fee entrusted to
    him by his client and thus failed to file the complaint promptly. The fact that the former returned the
    amount does not exculpate him from his breach of duty.

    You might also like