AC 10533; (January, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. 10533. January 31, 2017.
SILVESTRA MEDINA and SANTOS MEDINA LORAYA, Complainants, vs. ATTY. RUFINO LIZARDO, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainants Silvestra Medina and her nephew Santos Medina Loraya filed a disbarment complaint against their former counsel, Atty. Rufino Lizardo. They alleged that Silvestra, due to her advanced age, entrusted the owner’s duplicate copies of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 13866 and 3900 to Atty. Lizardo. When other heirs requested the titles, complainants demanded their return on March 5, 2011, but Atty. Lizardo refused.
In his defense, Atty. Lizardo argued the IBP lacked jurisdiction, framing the issue as one for specific performance. He admitted holding the titles, claiming they were entrusted in 1987 in connection with the sale of the complainants’ one-fourth share in the covered lots to a certain Renato Martinez. He refused to return them, asserting the need for Martinez’s written consent and that the titles were needed for a pending partition case (Civil Case No. 18400) to protect Martinez’s interest, for whom he also acted.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Rufino Lizardo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by refusing to return the titles entrusted to him by his client.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Lizardo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court held that the lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Lizardo and Silvestra Medina was established by his admission of being her counsel and his possession of her property. Upon termination of this relationship by the client’s demand for the return of the titles, Atty. Lizardo had a clear duty under Canon 16 and Rule 16.03 to promptly account for and return all funds and property held in trust.
The Court rejected his justification for withholding the titles. His duty was primarily to his client, Silvestra Medina, not to the alleged buyer, Renato Martinez. His refusal to return the documents upon demand, based on a perceived obligation to a third party, constituted a failure to uphold the client’s paramount interests in violation of Canon 17 and Rule 15.03. The Court found no merit in his jurisdictional challenge, as his actions as a lawyer in handling client property were properly subject to disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, Atty. Lizardo was found guilty and suspended from the practice of law for one year, with an order to return the TCTs to Silvestra Medina within 15 days.