A.C. No. 3195. December 18, 1989
MA. LIBERTAD SJ CANTILLER, complainant, vs. ATTY. HUMBERTO V. POTENCIANO, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ma. Libertad SJ Cantiller sought the legal services of respondent Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano to forestall the execution of an ejectment order against her and her sister. Respondent promised to secure a restraining order, claiming friendship with the judge, and demanded and received P1,000 as an initial attorney’s fee. Subsequently, he demanded an additional P2,000, purportedly to be given to another judge for issuing the order, of which complainant paid P1,000 and a $10 bill. Respondent then advised the filing of a new case, insisting on an urgent need for a P10,000 deposit with the Pasig Treasurer’s Office for the purchase of the apartment, plus another P1,000 for expenses, which complainant raised and paid.
However, respondent withdrew as counsel at a critical hearing, resulting in no restraining order being issued and the ejectment being enforced. Complainant later discovered that no P10,000 deposit was ever made or required. Demands for the return of the total P11,000 were ignored, prompting this administrative complaint for deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, and gross misconduct.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Potenciano is guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and violation of his professional duties warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty and suspended him indefinitely from the practice of law. The legal logic centers on the fundamental duties of a lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer is bound to serve the client with competence, diligence, and, above all, fidelity and good faith. Respondent’s actions constituted a gross betrayal of these duties. His false representation regarding his influence with judges to secure a restraining order was deceitful. His demand for a P10,000 deposit, which was neither required nor made, amounted to fraudulent extraction of money from a vulnerable client. His abrupt withdrawal as counsel at a crucial moment, after accepting fees and making assurances, demonstrated abandonment and a clear failure to represent the client with zeal, violating the duty of diligence.
The Court emphasized that the legal profession is a public trust, not a mere money-making trade. Respondent’s conduct—exploiting the client’s desperation, making false pretenses, and misappropriating funds—was utterly unbecoming of an officer of the court. It eroded public confidence in the bar. The indefinite suspension serves to protect the public and the integrity of the profession, requiring respondent to prove rehabilitation before any reinstatement. The Court also ordered him to return the P11,000 with legal interest, rectifying the financial injury caused by his misconduct.