AC 12460; (March, 2019) (Digest)
A.C. No. 12460. March 26, 2019. DIWEI “BRYAN” HUANG, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JUDE FRANCIS V. ZAMBRANO, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Diwei “Bryan” Huang, a Singaporean businessman, engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Jude Francis V. Zambrano to pursue a money claim. Atty. Zambrano filed an estafa case on Huang’s behalf. The respondents in that case offered a settlement of PhP250,000.00, which Huang accepted. The settlement money was paid by the opposing parties to Atty. Zambrano.
Despite Huang’s repeated demands over two months, Atty. Zambrano failed to remit the settlement proceeds. He offered various excuses, including that the estafa case had not been formally dismissed, he had a busy schedule, and he was dealing with personal issues. Huang filed a disbarment complaint, alleging Atty. Zambrano violated his fiduciary duty by failing to account for and deliver client funds upon demand.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Jude Francis V. Zambrano should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Zambrano. The Court found a clear violation of Canon 16, and Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of the CPR, which mandate a lawyer to hold client funds in trust, account for them, and deliver them upon demand. The relationship between lawyer and client is highly fiduciary. A lawyer’s failure to return client funds upon demand gives rise to the presumption that the lawyer has misappropriated them for personal use, which constitutes a gross violation of professional ethics and morality.
The Court emphasized that the duty to promptly account and remit is imperative. Atty. Zambrano’s refusal to turn over the money despite consecutive demands, coupled with his failure to properly participate in the disciplinary proceedings by not filing an answer and ignoring mandatory conferences, demonstrated a clear disregard for his ethical obligations. His actions eroded client trust and stained the integrity of the legal profession. Given the gravity of the violation, which involved deceit and gross misconduct, and considering his lack of atonement, the Court imposed the ultimate penalty of disbarment, finding the IBP’s recommended two-year suspension too lenient. He was also ordered to restitute the PhP250,000.00 with legal interest.