AC 11128; (April, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No.: A.C. No. 11128
Date: April 6, 2016
Case Parties/Title: Pedro Ramos, Complainant, vs. Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Pedro Ramos filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan for gross misconduct. Ramos alleged that Atty. Mandagan demanded and received from him the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) to be used as bail bond for his murder case before the Sandiganbayan, and an additional Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for operating expenses, with acknowledgment receipts issued. However, Ramos’s petition for bail was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Atty. Mandagan subsequently withdrew as his counsel and failed to return the P300,000.00 despite demand. In her Answer, Atty. Mandagan claimed the P300,000.00 was for mobilization expenses for case preparation, not for bail, and that Ramos never paid her acceptance, appearance, or legal fees. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found Atty. Mandagan liable for gross misconduct and failure to account for funds, recommending a one-year suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors approved. Atty. Mandagan’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan is administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for her failure to account for and return the money received from her client.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Mandagan guilty of violating Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court upheld the findings of the IBP-CBD and IBP Board of Governors. It held that a lawyer must account for all money received from a client and deliver such funds upon demand. Atty. Mandagan’s failure to return the P300,000.00 to Ramos after the denial of his bail petition and despite demand gave rise to the presumption of misappropriation, constituting a gross violation of trust and professional ethics. The Court rejected her defense that the money was for mobilization expenses, noting her failure to substantiate this claim and the lack of forthrightness in explaining its purpose. The Court SUSPENDED Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan from the practice of law for one (1) year, with a warning that a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.