G.R. No. A.C. No. 2144 and A.M. No. 2180. April 10, 1989.
CELEDONIO QUILBAN, ET AL., complainants, vs. ATTY. SANTIAGO R. ROBINOL, respondent. ATTY. SANTIAGO R. ROBINOL, complainant, vs. ATTY. A. R. MONTEMAYOR, respondent.

FACTS

The case originated from a land dispute involving thirty-two squatter families who formed the Samahang Pagkakaisa ng Barrio Bathala to purchase a reserved parcel of land from Colegio de San Jose. Their president, Bernabe Martin, connived with realtor Maximo Rivera to secure the sale for himself. The Samahan members sued Rivera and won on appeal before the Court of Appeals, which ordered Rivera to convey the land to them upon reimbursement. The members hired Atty. Santiago Robinol as counsel, paying him P2,000 and promising a share of the land. To raise the reimbursement funds, the members collected P75,000, which they entrusted to Atty. Robinol.
After nearly a year, the members discovered Robinol had not paid Rivera. Confronted with false excuses, 21 out of 32 members reached a consensus to discharge him. They hired Atty. Anacleto Montemayor, who formally entered his appearance after sending Robinol letters terminating his services. Robinol later filed a disbarment case against Montemayor for allegedly encroaching on his professional engagement, while the Samahan officers filed an administrative case against Robinol for misappropriating the P75,000.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether Atty. Robinol should be disciplined for misappropriating client funds and failing to fulfill his duties; and (2) whether Atty. Montemayor was guilty of unethical conduct for accepting the case after Robinol’s discharge.

RULING

The Court disbarred Atty. Santiago Robinol and dismissed the complaint against Atty. Anacleto Montemayor. Regarding Robinol, the Court found he violated his fiduciary duty by failing to account for and return the P75,000 entrusted to him for the land payment. His deceitful excuses and retention of the funds constituted a breach of the lawyer’s oath and ethical rules, warranting disbarment. He was ordered to return the money and forfeit any attorney’s fees.
Concerning Montemayor, the Court ruled he committed no ethical violation. Clients have the absolute right to discharge their counsel at any time under Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The consensus of 21 members constituted a valid majority, as Robinol himself sought to exclude seven members for non-payment, making the majority of the remaining 25 binding. Furthermore, Robinol was formally notified of his termination and initially raised no objection to Montemayor’s appearance. Thus, Montemayor properly entered the case after ensuring Robinol’s services were ended and did not encroach on another lawyer’s employment.