Arellano University v. Mijares
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Arellano University, Inc. (University) engaged the services of respondent Atty. Leovigildo H. Mijares III to secure a certificate of title for a property. The University gave Mijares P500,000.00 for "facilitation and processing" expenses, with a promise to return the money if the work was not completed. Mijares claimed Phase I was completed, but failed to provide documentation and became scarce. Procedural History: The University formally terminated Mijares' services and demanded the return of the P500,000.00. Mijares failed to return the money. The University filed a disbarment complaint. Mijares alleged the money was given to Undersecretary Cesar Lacuna for a bribe, with the University's conformity. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found Mijares guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation but modified the penalty to indefinite suspension and ordered the return of the money and documents. The Petition: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for resolution on whether respondent Mijares is guilty of misappropriating the P500,000.00 entrusted to him by his client.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Leovigildo H. Mijares III is guilty of misappropriating the P500,000.00 entrusted to him by his client, Arellano University, Inc. Whether the disbarment proceeding can be used to recover 'bribe money' lost in a failed transaction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Leovigildo H. Mijares III GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 15, Rule 15.05, Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03, and Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is meted the penalty of DISBARMENT. He is also directed to return all documents in his possession covering the titling matter to the University. His sworn statement is to be forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Whether respondent Atty. Leovigildo H. Mijares III is guilty of misappropriating the P500,000.00 entrusted to him by his client, Arellano University, Inc.: The Court found Mijares guilty of misappropriating the P500,000.00. The University's evidence, which Mijares did not controvert by presenting his own evidence, showed that he received the money for facilitation and processing expenses, promised to return it if unsuccessful, falsely claimed to have obtained MMDA approval, and refused to return the money despite repeated demands. Even considering Mijares' defense that he gave the money to Undersecretary Lacuna, the Court found it unconvincing. Mijares failed to confront his client with this explanation and did not take action to recover the money from Lacuna. His failure to appear and testify in his own behalf further weakened his defense, indicating a lack of merit. The Court emphasized that a lawyer's conversion of funds entrusted to him constitutes a gross violation of professional ethics and is grounds for disbarment under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Revised Rules of Court. On Issue 2: Whether the disbarment proceeding can be used to recover 'bribe money' lost in a failed transaction: The Court ruled that a disbarment proceeding cannot be used as a remedy for recovering bribe money lost in a bad deal. The Court noted that the P500,000.00 was given by the University for "facilitation" and processing, which the Court characterized as a euphemism for bribe money. The Court stated, "The Court will not permit the conversion of a disbarment proceeding into a remedy for recovering bribe money lost in a bad deal." Therefore, while the Court ordered the return of documents, it did not order the return of the P500,000.00, as the University knowingly gave the money for an illicit purpose. The Court also found Mijares' admission under oath of bribing a government official to be dishonest, further justifying the penalty of disbarment rather than indefinite suspension.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who fails to account for client funds entrusted to him, especially when such funds are used for illicit purposes like bribery, commits a gross violation of professional ethics and is subject to disbarment. The disbarment proceeding is not a venue for the recovery of lost 'facilitation' or bribe money.