AC 5808; (May, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. 5808 ; May 4, 2005
OSCAR M. ESPIRITU, complainant, vs. ATTY. JAIME C. ULEP, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Oscar M. Espiritu sought the assistance of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to contact respondent Atty. Jaime C. Ulep, who had allegedly been avoiding him. The complainant alleged two grievances: first, that the respondent failed to deliver P50,000 given to him on December 22, 1997, as settlement for a civil case involving complainant’s client, Mr. Ricardo Maon; and second, that the respondent refused to pay the balance of P30,000 from a brokered and notarized deed of absolute sale. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) scheduled several hearings to investigate the matter.
The respondent repeatedly failed to appear at the scheduled hearings before the IBP-CBD, submitting various requests for cancellation or transfer of venue. His only substantive submission was a counter-affidavit, which was originally prepared for a separate estafa case’s preliminary investigation. This affidavit did not directly address the core allegation regarding the misappropriated P50,000 settlement fund for Maon. Due to his successive non-appearances despite warnings, the Commission proceeded to receive the complainant’s evidence ex-parte.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Jaime C. Ulep is administratively liable for professional misconduct.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings and suspended Atty. Ulep. The legal logic rests on his violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client. Rule 16.01 specifically requires a lawyer to account for all funds received and to deliver them to the client promptly.
The respondent’s failure to appear at the hearings and his submission of an irrelevant counter-affidavit constituted a waiver of his right to present evidence and contest the allegations. Consequently, the complainant’s evidence, which included a certification from the respondent acknowledging receipt of the P50,000 for Maon and a letter from Maon confirming non-receipt, remained uncontroverted. This established that the respondent received funds for a specific purpose (settlement of a client’s case) and failed to account for and deliver them, constituting gross misconduct and a breach of trust. The Court found the evidence insufficient for the separate P30,000 claim. For misappropriating client funds, and considering it was his first offense, the Court imposed a six-month suspension from the practice of law and ordered him to restitute the P50,000 to Ricardo Maon with legal interest.