A.C. No. 10178, June 19, 2018
Kimeldes Gonzales, Complainant vs. Atty. Prisco B. Santos, Respondent

FACTS

Complainant Kimeldes Gonzales, residing in Quezon City, purchased land in Zamboanga City and appointed her sister, Josephine, as her representative. Josephine engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Prisco B. Santos to register the title in complainant’s name and to file an ejectment suit against the property’s occupants. Josephine paid respondent a total of ₱60,000, evidenced by signed receipts: ₱40,000 for the transfer of title and ₱20,000 for the ejectment case filing fees. The new title was issued on August 2, 2007, but respondent never delivered it to Josephine despite repeated demands. Complainant later discovered her property had been mortgaged to a lending corporation by Norena Bagui, respondent’s relative, using a forged special power of attorney. She also learned the ejectment case was never filed.
Respondent denied involvement in the mortgage, claiming he instructed his niece to deliver the title to Josephine and was surprised to learn of Norena’s actions, which Norena allegedly justified as done upon complainant’s instruction. He also denied being contracted to file the ejectment suit, asserting the ₱20,000 deposit was unsolicited and he could not file the case as some occupants were his friends.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. On the first charge, respondent violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by failing to account for and deliver the client’s property—the title—within a reasonable time upon demand. The lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary, requiring utmost good faith. The title’s non-delivery, followed by its use in a fraudulent mortgage just five days after issuance, coupled with Josephine’s persistent follow-ups, indicates respondent’s failure in his duty to safeguard client property. His claim of ignorance regarding his relative’s scheme is unconvincing; as the lawyer, he bore the responsibility for the title’s safekeeping and proper turnover.
On the second charge, respondent violated his fiduciary duty by accepting ₱20,000 for the ejectment suit, evidenced by a receipt, and then not filing the case without informing the client. His excuse that he could not sue his friends is a breach of trust and a failure to either perform the service or promptly return the money. Consequently, the Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for three years, ordered him to return the ₱20,000 to complainant within 90 days, and issued a stern warning against repetition. The penalty aligns with precedents for similar CPR violations concerning the safekeeping of client funds and property and the failure to fulfill agreed-upon legal services.