rto

l\epublic of tbe ~biltpptnes

f;upreme Ql:ourt
:flllaniln

SECOND DIVISION

WILSON CHUA, A.C. No. 9880

Complainant,

Present:

CARPIO, Chabperson,
~versus~ BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
rv1ENDOZA, and
LEONEN,JJ.

ATTY. DIOS~e:~d?~;~IENEZ, Pro2n~lgNO~: 201

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - · - - - - - - -~~~x
DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This case was filed wit.1-i the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Commission on Bar Discipline on October 20, 2003 by complainant Wilson Chua
against respondent Atty. Diosdado B. Jimenez for grave misconduct, malpractice,
dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. 1

Factual Antecedents

1be complainant alleged that he entered into a retainership agreement with

the respondent for the latter to handk~ all his legal problems, witl-i particular
emphasis on those that needed filing in the courts: more specifically, against
Excellent Quality, Alexander Ty, Benny Lao, Clarita Tan, and Amosup. For these,
he gave respondent the amount of P235~ 127.00 for tht: necessary filing fees.
Complainant likewise entrusted to the respondent all the pertinent documents
thereto.

The complainant likewis~ alleged that~ for the last seven years prior, he had
never attended a single hearing on any case that he had assigned to respondent,
~ave ~or ~ose inv~lv~g Clarita T?J1 and Union Bank and in which case he was/#'~
' Rollo, pp. 1-4.
 Decision ...
")
A.C. No. 9880

defendant. Respondent allegedly would advise him of upcoming hearings only to

cancel them last minute due pm-portedly to cancellations, postponements, or
resettings of the hearings.

Complainant had written respondent several times- on JU!le 11, 2003; June
20, 2003; July 14, 2003; August 18~ 2003; September 9, 2003; and September 24,
2003 - for the retun1 of the documents he had entrusted to respondent as well as
the amount of P235,127.00. On September 24, 2003, he tenninated respondent's
legal services for failure to file the necessary cases, the very object of the
retainership agreement, and to return the sum of P235, 127.00.

In an Order dated October 23, 2003, the IBP directed respondent to file his
Answer within 15 days. Instead of filing an Answer, rsspondent requested for
additional 15 days within which to comply. 3 Thereafter, respondent :filed a
Motion for Bill of Particulars4 and another Urgent Motion to File Answer. 5
However, for being a prohibited pleading, the IBP denied the motion for bill of
particulars.6 With no action yet on the part of the IBP with regard to his Urgent
Motion To File Answer, respondent again filed an Urgent Motion For Last
Extension To File Answer.7 Perhaps exasperated by respondcnes delaying tactics,
complainant moved that respondent be declared in default and that he be allowed
to present evidence ex~prute. 8

In an Order9 dated Mar{)h 17, 2004, the IBP declared respondent in default
and set the mandatory conference on April 28, 2004. ln the meantime, respondent
moved for the lifting of the default order10 attaching thereto his Answer with
Counterclaim.

Respondent denied complainant's charges that he had violated his oath of

office as a lawyer and the Code of Profossional Responsibility. He further alleged
that he had been pressuring the complainant and his mother Tiu Eng Te for the
payment of professional services rendered by his law finn amounting to around
P 1.3 Million. And because of this non-payment or failure to arrive at a mutually
acceptable arrangement for the payment of his professional fees, he has withheld
the filing of cases o.n behalf of the complainant and his comp~He also denied
receiving the amount of P235, 127.00 from complainant. 11 /'v-~

Id. at 27.
Id. at 28~29.
4
Id. at 31-33.
Id. at 35-36.
6
Id. at 38.
(d. at 40-41.
Id. at 43-45.
9
Id. at 46.
10
Id. at 49-53.
11
Id. at 54,62.
 Decision 3 A.C. No. 9880

By way of Reply, 12 complainant insisted that respondent had received the

an10unt of P235,127.00 intended for payment of filing fees. As proof, he
submitted photocopies of checks payable to respondent as well as cash vouchers
13
showing details of said payment.

Mandatory conference was thereafter conducted during which both parties

appeared and entered into stipulations. After the tennination of the mandatory
conference, both parties were directed to submit their verified position papers.
Only complainant complied. Respondent failed to submit his position paper.

Report and Recommendation ofthe IBP:

The Investigating Commissioner14 found respondent guilty of violating the

Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04
as well as Canon 22, Rule 22.02. He opined that:

As between the claim of Complainant that he gave Respondent an

amount for filing fees of the cases endorsed x x x and the denial of Respondent
we are inclined to agree wi1h Complainant that at least the amount of
Pl 65,127.00 xx x was given to Respondent. Besides, such bare denial would
appear inconsistent with Respondent's own admission that he was forced to hold
on the filing of new cases because of unsettled professional fees. x x x

x x x There is nothing on record to show that Respondent ever informed

Complainant on the status of their case.xx x

Respondent has raised the matt~r of his unpaid foes in other cases
handled by him as a reason for his not filing the cases. Respondent has not
presented enough evidence to convince lJS of such tmpaid fees. Besides, it is clear
that the papers and documents were given to him for 1he specific purpose of
filing cases but which Respondent did not file. He already received the amounts
for filing fees. x x x Respondent has not even accomplished the purpose for
which the monies and documents were given.

xx xx

Respondent has not been candid with Complainant in terms of his

handling of the aforementioned accounts contrary to the demands of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Respondent is also negligent in not acting on the cases endorsed to him

by Complainant. The fact that there is an outstanding issue with respect to the
payment of his retainer fees in not, to our mind, a justification for his inaction.
The least Respondent would have done is to keep the Complainant updated on
such cases and candidly discuss with him the matter ofhis outstanding~

12
___ _____
,_ ..,~.~...,._,....

Id. at 67-71.
13
Id. at 72· 77.
14
Commissioner Caesar R. Dulay.
 Decision 4 A.C. No. 9880

Respondent has not returned any of the papers or documents demanded

by the client after his services were terminated. Nothing on the record shows that
he returned the documents and files requested. x x x

xx xx

We believe that under the facts presented, Respondent has violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility and should therefore be disciplined. 15

Thus, the Investigating Commissioner recommended respondent's

suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months and that he be
16
ordered to return the pertinent files and documents to complainant. The IBP
Board of Governors, in Resolution No. XVII-2006-579 dated December 15, 2006,
resolved to adopt the fmdings of the Investigating Commissioner but modified the
recommended penalty to suspension of one ( 1) year from the practice of law and
to return the files and documents of the complainant, and the amoWlts duly
supported by receiQ.t§. 17

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. In Resolution No. X:X-

2012-591 dated December 29, 2012, the IBP Board of Governors granted the
same and reinstated the penalty recommended by the Investigating Commissioner
of suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months and to
return the records and documents to complainant.

The records of the case was thereafter transmitted by the IBP to this Court
pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. In a Manifestation and Clarification
dated April 2, 2013, complainant sought that respondent be also ordered to return
the amount of P235,127.00 to complainant.

Issues

Before this Court is the long standing controversy associated with a

retainership agreement - does a lawyer have the right to hold on to a client's
documents, even after the relationship of lawyer-client has been terminated, due to
non-payment of his or her professional legal fees? Or is this a ground for
disciplinary action? Did respondent violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility when he failed to file the cases indorsed by complainant despite
receipt of filing fee~

15
Report and Recommendation, pp 7-1 O; rollo, unpaginated.
16
Id. at 10; id.
17
Rollo, unpaginated.
 Decision 5 A.C. No. 9880

The Court's Ruling

Relying on the exhaustive fact-finding deliberations of the IBP, we find the

complainant's allegations to be believable and supported by evidence.

Because he had doubted that respondent ever filed any case as agreed upon
with complainant, the latter started demanding from the former the return of all the
documents and files he had given to him at the start of their retainership agreement
as well as the amounts entrusted to him as filing fees. In a span of roughly two
and a half months, complainant wrote respondent no less than six times. On the
other hand, there is no record to show that respondent ever executed a written
reply to any of the six letters.

We give credence to the allegatiqn that complainant gave respondent some

amount specifically for filing fees, relative to the cases both parties had earlier
agreed to. However, as correctly noted by the Investigating Commissioner, only
the amount of Pl 65, 127.00 oµt of the alleged P235, 127.00 was duly proved by
complainant to have been received by respondent specifically to defray the
expenses for filing fees. Among the disbursements were Ill00,000.00 for filing
and other fees relative to the Excellent Quality case (May 10, 1997); P23,000.00
for the Attachment Bond likewise for Excellent Quality (August 18, 1999);
P13,563.50 representing the filing foe of Alex Ty (August 4, 2000); Pl3,563.50
representing the filing fee of Clarita Tan (August 5, 2000); and PlS,000.00 as
filing fee for Benny Lao (August 31, 2001). This total of P165,127.00 is duly
supported by checks issued to respondent and ~ompany vouchers relating to the
particular disbursements and which vouchers were signed by respondent.

Notably, during the mandatory conference held on December 13, 2004,

respondent admitted that he received said amounts from complainant. However,
he explained that notwithstanding receipt of money from complainant, he withheld
filing of cases indorsed to him because complainant had not yet settled his
obligation with respondent's law office, viz.:

COMM. DULAY:
So did you withhold action on those cases?

ATTY. JIMENEZ:
We suspended, Your Honor, not the services but we withhold the filing
of the cases until after partial settlement at least of the obligation is
settled. 18

Similarly, in his motion for reconsideration filed with the IBP, respondent
admitted that he applied 1he monies he received from complainant to his and I/#~
18
TSN. December 13, 2002, pp. 44-45.
 Decision 6 A.C. No. 9880

office's professional fees instead of defraying the same as intended, i.e., as filing
fees, to wit:

Whatever amount paid by complainant to respondent's law office were

applied as partial payments of respondent's law office professional fees, and
reimbursement of other miscellaneous expenses spent by the respondent's law
office to complainant xx x. 19

"A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath, a
patent disregard of his duties, or an odious deportment unbecoming an attorney. A
lawyer must at no time be wanting in probity and moral fiber which are not only
conditions precedent to his entrance to the Bar but are likewise essential demands
for his continued membership therein." 20

In particular, the Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 15, states:

A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.

Respondent fell short in being fair and loyal to his client, herein
complainant.

Rules 18.03 further states:

A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Respondent did not even file the cases for which he was engaged and upon
which he collected filing fees.

Rule 18.04 continues:

A lawyer shall keep the client intom1ed of the statl.1S of his ca<>e and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for infonnation.

Respondent was utterly lacking in this responsibility to his client as he

unfairly kept him in the dark, misleading him for seven years,

While the same Code of Professional Responsibility recognizes the right of

a lawyer to .have ;i lien_()ver the funds and property of his client as may~
19
Motion for Reconsideration, pp. 7-8.
20
Penilla v. Atty. Alcid, .Jr., 717 Phil. 210, 219 (2013).
 Decision 7 A.C. No. 9880

necessary to satisfy his lawful fe~s, Rule 16.03 demands that "[a] lawyer shall
deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand." This is a
reiteration of Rule 16.01, which states that "[a] lawyer shall account for all money
and property collected or received for or from the client."

"A lawyer should be scrnpul91,1sly careful in handling money entrusted to

him in his professional capacity. Consequently, when a lawyer receives money
from a client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is boµnd to render an accounting
to his client, showing that he spent the money for the purpose intended."21

Respondent miser:;ibly diS.reg~rded the mandate of accou.11tability expected

of him.

The respondent's issue on the supposed non·payment of his fees should

have prompted him to seek communication wit.11 complainant and resolve such
matter. He sho\ild not have used the same as a ground for his inaction insofar as
the cases referred to him were concerned. "A lawyer's negligence in the discharge
of his obligations ~ising from the r~lationship of counsel and client may cause
delay in the administration of justice and prejudic~ the rights of a litigant~
particularly .his client, Thus, &om the perspective of the ethics of the legal
profession, ~ lawyer's lethargy in carrying out his duties to hi~ client is both
unprofessional and unethical.'':z 2 "Indeed, un9~r their sacred oath, lawyers pledge
not to delay any person for money or malice."23

Neither should the said issue have been the reason for his failure to return
the documents of his client. Rule 22.02 mandates him to do so: "A lawyer who
withdraws or is dis9harged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately tum all
papers and property to which the client is entitled ....xx x."

In the recent ?n bane 9as~ of Fahie v. Atty. Real, 2A the Court suspended the
errant lawyer from the practfoe of law for six (6) months for failing to return the
documents and money ~ntnJsted to him by his client. At the same time, he was
ordered to return the money witti legal interest fh;:;pi th~ time h~·received the saine
until full payment tl1~reof. In the present case, records show that respondent
received the total amount of P165,127.00 as fQllows; Pl00,000,00 011 May 10,
1997; P23,000.00 on August 18~ 1999; ~13,563.50 on August 4, 2000; another
P13,563.50 on August 5, 2000~ and Pl5,000.00 on August 31, 7001. 25 'Thus,
pursuant to our ruling in r(lbi~, respondent must return the aforesaid amounts to
complainant with h1te~st ~t the legal rate of 12% per annum from their ~pecti~#
21
Mejares, v. Atty. Rrrnanq, 469 Phil. 619, 627-628 (2004).
22
13
v.
Belleza Atty.•ft.1acr;isa, 611 Phil. 179, 188 (2009).
M.acarilcry v. Serifla; 491 Phil. 348, 3~6 (2005)
4
i A.C. No. 10574, Septcmber20, 2016.
25
Records, pp. 72, 74-77.
Decision 8 A.C. No. 9880

date of receipt until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full
payment.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Diosdado B. Jimenez is found

GUILTY of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
Lawyer's Oath and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months and ORDERED to return to complainant within ten (10) days from notice
all the pertinent records and documents, and the amounts of Pl00,000.00;
P23,000.00; P13,653.50; another P13,653.50; and P15,000.00, or a total of
P165,127.00, with interest of 12% per annum reckoned from the respective date of
receipt until .June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full
payment. Respondent is WARNED that commission of the same or similar
infraction in the future will merit a more severe penalty. Respondent is also
directed to submit proof of his compliance within 30 days from receipt of this
Decision.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to
be entered in the personal records of respondent and the Office of the Court
Administrator for dissemination to all courts.

SO ORDERED.

~~i;
MARIA.~O C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIOT.C
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Decision 9 A.C. No. 9880

~~
ARTURO D. BRION JOSEC~NDOZA
Associate Justice A~~=Ji:s~ce

'

MARVIC-M.V.F. LEONEN
/
Associate Justice