G.R. No. A.C. No. 2731; April 19, 1991
Gloria Dela Rosa Obia, petitioner, vs. Atty. Basilio M. Catimbang, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Gloria Dela Rosa Obia, a court stenographer, sought to repurchase a parcel of land for P11,000.00. On May 27, 1981, respondent Atty. Basilio Catimbang, who was assisting in the transaction, advised her to leave the money with him under receipt, assuring her he would handle the payment to the landowner, Jose Rello. Relying on his assurances as a lawyer, complainant entrusted the funds. However, respondent failed to consummate the repurchase. Despite repeated demands via letters and a telegram from 1981 to 1984, respondent neither returned the money nor accounted for it satisfactorily, offering only flimsy excuses and shifting blame to complainant’s mother-in-law.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) conducted an investigation. Respondent repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled hearings, sending only motions for postponement. Consequently, complainant was allowed to testify ex parte, substantiating her allegations. Respondent never presented his evidence or cross-examined the complainant, maintaining a pattern of non-appearance and silence throughout the proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Basilio Catimbang’s failure to return the entrusted money and his conduct constitute deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct warranting disciplinary action under the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct and suspended him indefinitely from the practice of law. The legal logic is clear: a lawyer’s fiduciary duty demands the highest degree of fidelity and good faith. Respondent, by soliciting and receiving complainant’s funds for a specific legal purpose, entered into an attorney-client relationship or at least a relationship of special trust. His subsequent failure to either complete the transaction or promptly return the money upon demand, coupled with his evasion of the investigation, constitutes a blatant breach of that trust.
The Court emphasized that respondent’s excuses were unsubstantiated and flimsy. His persistent failure to appear before the OSG and his disregard of formal demands demonstrated a conscious disregard of his professional obligations. Such conduct violates Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. By misappropriating or unjustly withholding client funds, respondent engaged in gross misconduct that discredits the entire profession. The indefinite suspension serves to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the legal system. The Court also ordered him to return the balance of P4,000.00 with interest.