AC 5019; (April, 2000) (Digest)
A.C. No. 5019; April 6, 2000
Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, complainant, vs. Atty. Thomas C. Uy Jr., respondent.
FACTS
Judge Adoracion G. Angeles of the RTC of Caloocan City filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Thomas C. Uy Jr. for violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The charge stemmed from a hearing in a criminal case where the accused, Norma Trajano, manifested in open court that she had fully settled the civil liability. She stated she paid P20,000 directly to the private complainant, Primitiva Malansing Del Rosario, and the balance of P16,500 was delivered to her lawyer, Atty. Uy, presenting a receipt signed by him. However, Del Rosario manifested she never received the P16,500 from her counsel.
The court then directed Atty. Uy to turn over the money he received in trust for his client. Atty. Uy argued his client did not wish to accept it, but Del Rosario contradicted this, expressing her willingness to receive the funds. The court ordered him to produce the money, but he claimed it was in his office. The proceedings were suspended to allow him to retrieve it from his nearby office. Atty. Uy failed to return, disregarding the court’s directive.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Thomas C. Uy Jr. committed professional misconduct by failing to promptly account for and deliver money received in trust for his client.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Uy is guilty of professional misconduct. The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyers are fiduciaries obligated to hold client funds with utmost fidelity. Canon 16, Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of a client when due or upon demand. Atty. Uy’s failure to immediately inform his client of the receipt of the P16,500 and his subsequent failure to deliver it upon her demand and the court’s order constituted a clear breach of this duty.
The Court rejected Atty. Uy’s defense, noting that keeping the money without the client’s knowledge created a tempting opportunity for misappropriation and eroded trust. The ethical duty is not contingent on actual prejudice to the client but on the lawyer’s adherence to professional standards. While there was no clear evidence of misappropriation, the failure to promptly account and deliver warranted disciplinary action. Considering the circumstances, the Court suspended Atty. Thomas C. Uy Jr. from the practice of law for one month, with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.