Dhaliwal v. Dumaguing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Emilia O. Dhaliwal engaged the services of respondent Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing for the purchase of a parcel of land from Fil-Estate Development, Inc. (Fil-Estate). On June 13, 2000, complainant's daughter and son-in-law withdrew P342,000.00 and handed it to respondent. Respondent then purchased two manager's checks amounting to P58,631.94 and P253,188.00, both payable to Fil-Estate Inc. These checks were subsequently consigned with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) after complainant's request to suspend payments was granted. Respondent later withdrew these consigned manager's checks. On September 22, 2000, respondent, on behalf of complainant, filed a complaint for delivery of title and damages against Fil-Estate with the HLURB. A week later, respondent withdrew the consigned manager's checks. On March 3, 2003, complainant informed the HLURB that respondent was no longer representing her. On March 11, 2003, the HLURB ruled against complainant, finding her case for delivery of title and damages premature due to lack of evidence of full payment. Complainant demanded the return of the consigned amounts from respondent, but he failed to comply, leading to the filing of the instant complaint for violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Procedural History: Respondent admitted substantially all allegations but claimed the consigned amount of P311,819.94 was to cover the full payment of the lot's balance, which Fil-Estate did not accept due to additional interest demands. He asserted he filed a motion to verify if the judgment was satisfied and was awaiting action before returning the funds. Following the submission of complainant's verified position paper and respondent's failure to submit his, the Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent violated Canon 16 and submitted false evidence, recommending a one-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors modified this, suspending respondent for six months and ordering him to return P311,819.94 within 30 days. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court adopts the IBP's findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Petition: The complainant prays that respondent be disbarred for his violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically for his failure to return and account for the consigned amounts despite demand.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession, specifically Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03. Whether respondent failed to return and account for the funds entrusted to him by his client, and whether such failure gives rise to the presumption that he appropriated them for his own use.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, finding Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing guilty of violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months and ordered to return the amount of P311,819.94 to complainant Emilia O. Dhaliwal with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and failed to return and account for the funds entrusted to him by his client: The Court held that respondent violated Canon 16, which mandates that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Specifically, Rule 16.01 requires a lawyer to account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client, and Rule 16.03 mandates that a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. In this case, the respondent withdrew the consigned manager's checks totaling P311,891.94 from the HLURB, which were intended for the payment of the balance of the purchase price of the parcel of land. However, these funds were not used for the intended purpose, and despite demands from the complainant, respondent failed to return the money. On whether respondent's failure to return the funds gives rise to the presumption that he appropriated them for his own use: The Court reiterated the principle that money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, if not used for that purpose, should be immediately returned. Respondent's excuse of awaiting action on a motion he failed to prove was filed, as a condition for returning the funds, compounded his liability and demonstrated a failure to meet the high moral standards required of the legal profession. His failure to return the funds upon demand gives rise to the presumption that he appropriated them for his own use, a gross violation of professional ethics that impairs public confidence in the legal profession.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client, which is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics, impairing public confidence in the legal profession and deserving punishment.