G.R. No. A.C. No. 7035, July 13, 2020
Pedro Salazar, Complainant, vs. Atty. Armand Duran, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Pedro Salazar engaged the services of respondent Atty. Armand Duran in a partition case involving his parents’ estate. They executed two contracts for attorney’s fees: one on a contingent basis for 20% of any proceeds, and another setting fees at P50,000.00 each, subject to conditions. Pedro received a Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) check for P339,854.50 and LBP bonds as his share in the just compensation for his parents’ expropriated property. At Atty. Duran’s behest, Pedro signed a waiver for the LBP bonds in his favor. Upon learning the bonds’ value (approximately P821,038.50) exceeded the stipulated fees, Pedro asked for the excess back, but Atty. Duran refused. On March 17, 1997, Atty. Duran allegedly grabbed the LBP check from Pedro, deposited it into his own Allied Bank account, and used the bonds’ value to pay off a loan. Pedro terminated his services. Later, when another property was expropriated, Atty. Duran intervened in court, claiming 20% of Pedro’s new share. During a hearing on a related motion, Atty. Duran gave inconsistent testimony: first stating he signed the LBP check only as a witness and that Pedro received the money, but later admitting on cross-examination that he deposited the check into his account, withdrew money, and gave it to Pedro. Pedro filed this administrative complaint for unethical conduct, dishonesty, false testimony, violation of the lawyer’s oath, and acts inimical to his client.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Armand Duran should be administratively liable for unethical conduct, dishonesty, false testimony, violation of the lawyer’s oath, and for acts inimical to his client.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Armand Duran is administratively liable. The Court found him guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The dismissal of any related criminal charge for false testimony does not bar this administrative proceeding. Atty. Duran’s inconsistent testimony under oath, where he first denied and then admitted to depositing the client’s check into his personal account, constitutes a falsehood that misled the court, violating Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR. Furthermore, by having the LBP check endorsed to him and depositing it into his personal account, he effectively converted client funds for his own use, which is a gross violation of trust and a breach of Canon 16, Rule 16.01 of the CPR, which mandates a lawyer to account for all money and property of his client. His actions demonstrated dishonesty and a lack of the candor, fairness, and good faith required of a lawyer. Considering the gravity of his misconduct, which included deceit and abuse of client trust, the penalty recommended by the IBP (a three-month suspension) was deemed too lenient. The Supreme Court modified the penalty and suspended Atty. Armand Duran from the practice of law for one (1) year, with a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.