AC 12713; (September, 2020) (Digest)
A.C. No. 12713, September 23, 2020
Jimmy N. Gow, Complainant, vs. Attys. Gertrudo A. De Leon and Felix B. Desiderio, Jr., Respondents.
FACTS
Complainant Jimmy N. Gow, Chairman of the Uniwide Group of Companies, engaged the legal services of respondents’ law firm in December 2014. He alleged that he personally delivered PHP 3,000,000.00 to Atty. De Leon to cover an acceptance fee and other litigation costs. No formal retainer agreement was executed, nor were any official receipts issued. After three months with no significant legal work performed, complainant, through a company officer, demanded the return of PHP 2,000,000.00. Respondents subsequently issued three postdated checks totaling PHP 1,050,000.00. Complainant later demanded an additional PHP 950,000.00, claiming a total unreturned balance of PHP 1,950,000.00, which prompted this disbarment complaint for violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Respondents countered that the total amount received was only PHP 2,000,000.00, not PHP 3,000,000.00. They asserted they provided a retainer agreement which complainant refused to sign. They further claimed to have returned an additional PHP 600,000.00 in cash, which complainant acknowledged, and that they duly replied to his demand letter. Respondents also challenged the authenticity of a supporting affidavit from complainant’s finance officer, noting a certification from the Notarial Office that it was not on file.
ISSUE
Whether respondents violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR for failure to account for and return client funds.
RULING
The Court DISMISSED the complaint. In disbarment cases, the burden of proof rests on the complainant, who must establish the allegations by substantial evidence. The Court found that complainant failed to discharge this burden. His claim of delivering PHP 3,000,000.00 was supported only by his own self-serving handwritten notes, which the Court deemed insufficient as they were merely a proposed breakdown of estimated costs and not proof of actual payment. The absence of a formal agreement or official receipt does not, by itself, prove malfeasance, as an attorney-client relationship can exist without a written contract.
Crucially, the evidence showed respondents had returned a significant portion of the funds. They presented proof of issuing checks for PHP 1,050,000.00 and making cash returns of PHP 600,000.00. Given their assertion that they only received PHP 2,000,000.00, the amount retained could logically represent fees for services actually rendered. The Court also noted the dubious nature of the affidavit complainant relied upon. Since complainant did not substantiate his claim of handing over PHP 3,000,000.00, his demand for a larger refund lacked basis. The presumption of innocence in favor of the lawyers stood unrebutted.