Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
August 9, 1932
CONCEPCION CABIGAO and LUIS YZQUIERDO, complainants,
vs.
JOSE FERNANDO RODRIGO, respondent.
Alfredo B. Cacnio for complainants.
The respondent in his own behalf.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for the Government.
IMPERIAL, J.:
On March 6, 1931, Concepcion Cabigao and Luis Yzquierdo filed charges for malpractice against Attorney Jose Fernando Rodrigo.
By resolution of March 9, 1931, the court referred the matter to the Attorney-General for investigation, report and recommendation.
After several hearings in which the parties submitted their evidence the Attorney-General, on April 5, 1932, submitted his report.
The respondent was then required to answer the report and after various extensions of time which were granted him upon his request he finally filed his answer on May 20, 1932.
The matter was called for hearing on July 12, 1932, and the attorneys filed their respective memorandum.
After careful consideration of the whole evidence presented at the hearings the Attorney-General found the following facts satisfactorily proven:
That the complainants were defendants in case No. 3590 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan; that the respondent was one of their counsel; that sometime between May and July, 1930, the respondent advised the complainants to settle the case for P2,500, and that during the same period, the respondent had been the house of Eugenio Lim Pineda, plaintiff in said case No. 3590, with offers of settlement; that after securing the assent of said Eugenio Lim Pineda to a settlement of the case for the amount of P2,500, the respondent obtained from the complainants a check for the amount of P3,900, P2,500 of which, he represented as the sum to be paid to Eugenio Lim Pineda in full settlement of the case and the P1,400 to be paid to himself for his professional services; that the respondent also represented to the complainants that the payment of said amount would terminate the case and that Pineda would subscribe to a motion for dismissal; that after obtaining from the complainants the said check, the respondent kept the funds and failed to settle the case; that the complainants relying upon the representatives of the respondent believed that the case would be settled and were unprepared for the trial which took place sometime after the respondent had assured them that they had "nothing to worry about"; that by reason of the respondent's representations and conduct, the complainants were forced to a settlement in open court, by the terms of which, they were sentenced to pay the amount of P3,500 to Eugenio Lim Pineda; that in order to satisfy the judgment the complainants demanded of the respondent, the return of the amount of P2,500 (Exhs. B and E of the complainants and Exh. 20 of the respondent); that to compel the respondent to make such return the complainants had to appeal to the fiscal of the City of Manila; that by reason of the respondent's conduct the complainants suffered considerable damages.
The facts above quoted are undeniable and do not leave room for any doubt. It has been clearly proven by Exhibit A, the authenticity of which is admitted by respondent, that he received the check No. 1568738-D of the Philippine National bank in the amount of P3,900 to be applied as follows: P2,500 to be paid to Eugenio Lim Pineda as the agreed price of the amicable settlement between him and the complainants in civil case No. 3590 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, and P1,400 to be paid to the respondent as attorney's fees. The whole amount of P3,900 was misappropriated by the respondent notwithstanding the fact that he never carried out the alleged amicable settlement of the case and the repeated demands made by the complainants for the return of the money.
We have here a clear case of misappropriation by an attorney of funds entrusted to him by his clients to be applied to the settlement of a civil case in which he acted as a lawyer. It also clearly appears that these facts constitute malpractice for which the respondent is accountable.
The contention of the respondent that he had the right to retain the money intended to be paid to Eugenio Lim Pineda for the protection of certain bondsmen secured by him in favor of the complainants and that at any rate he was entitled to use all the money because the complainants were indebted to him in a larger amount as attorney's fees, is untenable and without merit. He admitted having received the total sum of money for the specific purpose recited in the receipt signed by him, and we fail to conceive any sound reason by which he should be allowed to misapply said money entrusted to him. To permit this would amount to sanctioning a flagrant violation of his obligations as an attorney to his clients and to the public, aside from the criminal aspect which the case might have.
In view of the foregoing we are of the opinion that Attorney Jose Fernando Rodrigo should be, as he is hereby, suspended from his profession indefinitely 1 and until he refunds the sum of P3,900 to the complainants and let this matter be again referred to the Attorney-General for appropriate action, result thereof to be reported to this court for further proceeding. So ordered.
Avanceņa, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers and Butte, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1Modified by resolution of December 23, 1932, fixing the period of suspension for six months.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
