A.M. No. MTJ-00-1336. December 19, 2000.
Petra M. Sevilla, complainant, vs. Judge Ismael L. Salubre, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Petra Sevilla engaged the legal services of Atty. Ismael Salubre, prior to his judgeship, for a civil case. Upon his advice, she delivered ₱45,000.00 to him on December 26, 1990, to be consigned with the court as repurchase money. Instead of consigning it, respondent deposited the amount in his personal bank account. He subsequently withdrew and misappropriated the funds for his own use without complainant’s consent. From 1994 to 1997, respondent issued a series of promissory notes and requests for extension to repay, repeatedly failing to honor each deadline. In 1997, he issued two checks to settle the obligation, but both were dishonored due to a closed account. Despite a subsequent affidavit of desistance from the complainant citing a “misunderstanding,” the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) proceeded with the administrative case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Ismael L. Salubre is administratively liable for his conduct in mishandling and failing to return client funds entrusted to him prior to his appointment to the judiciary.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The core legal principle is that a lawyer’s fiduciary duty to a client, encompassing the faithful handling of funds, is not extinguished by a subsequent appointment to the bench. The act complained of constitutes a violation of Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically the rules requiring a lawyer to hold client funds in trust, account for them, and deliver them upon demand. Respondent’s acts—depositing the money in his personal account, misappropriating it, and issuing worthless checks in a belated attempt at settlement—demonstrate a clear breach of this sacred trust.
The Court emphasized that the affidavit of desistance does not divest it of its disciplinary authority. Administrative cases are matters of public interest concerned with the purity of the legal profession and the judiciary, not merely private grievances to be compromised. Respondent’s conduct, occurring before his appointment, reflects a character flaw that casts doubt on his fitness for judicial office. Judges must be embodiments of integrity and probity. While the Court considered his eventual payment of the principal amount as a mitigating factor, his repeated deceit and issuance of worthless checks aggravated the offense. Consequently, the Court found him guilty of gross misconduct and imposed a fine of ₱20,000.00 with a stern warning.