AC 8380; (November, 2009) (Digest)
A.C. No. 8380; November 20, 2009
Arellano University, Inc. vs. Atty. Leovigildo H. Mijares III
FACTS
Complainant Arellano University engaged respondent Atty. Leovigildo Mijares III to secure a certificate of title for a property. The University gave him ₱500,000.00, purportedly for “facilitation and processing” expenses, with a promise of refund if the task remained unaccomplished. Mijares later informed the University of completing Phase I, involving MMDA approval and DENR submission. However, he failed to provide copies of the approval despite demands, became inaccessible, and did not return the money upon formal demand and termination of his services.
In his Answer, Mijares claimed the ₱500,000.00 was part of agreed “facilitation costs” and that he gave the money to then-MMDA Deputy Chairman Cesar Lacuna through a common friend to secure a favorable endorsement. He alleged the University withheld prior application details, complicating the process. During the IBP investigation, Mijares repeatedly failed to appear and present evidence in his defense.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Mijares III is guilty of misappropriating client funds entrusted to him.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty and ordered his disbarment. The legal logic centers on the fiduciary duty of a lawyer as a trustee of client funds. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer must account for and hold client money separate from personal funds. Mijares failed to fulfill this duty by not returning the ₱500,000.00 upon demand and by being unable to account for it. His failure to participate in the IBP investigation further evidenced the lack of merit in his defense.
Critically, the Court noted Mijares admitted under oath to giving the money to a government official for “facilitation,” which the Court equated to bribery, constituting deceit and gross misconduct. While the IBP recommended indefinite suspension, the Court imposed disbarment due to the gravity of violating multiple ethical rules, including those against corruption. The Court, however, declined to order the return of the ₱500,000.00, characterizing it as bribe money and refusing to convert the disbarment proceeding into a collection suit for an illicit sum. Mijares was directed to return all case documents to the University, and his sworn statement was referred to the Ombudsman for possible criminal action.