Title
Adrimisin vs. Javier
Case
A.C. No. 2591
Decision Date
Sep 8, 2006
Atty. Javier failed to account for P500, neglected securing a valid bail bond, and misrepresented its validity, violating professional ethics, leading to a six-month suspension and restitution.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 2591)

Facts:

  1. Introduction and Initial Agreement:

    • On 12 July 1983, Leticia Adrimisin (complainant) was introduced to Atty. Rolando S. Javier (respondent) by her cousin, Pablo Adrimisin.
    • Complainant sought respondent's assistance to secure the release of her son-in-law, Alfredo Monterde, who was charged with qualified theft and detained in Caloocan City Jail.
    • Respondent advised complainant to file a bail bond and accepted P500 from her, issuing a receipt and promising Monterde's release the following day.
  2. Failure to Fulfill Promise:

    • Monterde was not released as promised. Complainant visited respondent's office multiple times but felt he was avoiding her.
    • Monterde was eventually released after settling the case with his employer.
    • Complainant demanded the return of the P500, but respondent failed to refund the amount.
  3. Respondent's Defense:

    • Respondent denied being hired as legal counsel, claiming he only assisted in securing a bail bond.
    • He admitted receiving P500 and giving it to Carlos Alberto, an insurance agent, but the amount was insufficient for the bond.
    • Respondent denied promising immediate release and advised complainant to seek a refund from Alberto.
  4. Testimony of Carlos Alberto:

    • Alberto testified that respondent approached him on 20 July 1983 to secure a bail bond for qualified theft.
    • A bail bond was issued by Philippine Phoenix Surety & Insurance, Inc., with a total cost of P1,219, but it was not filed in court due to insufficient payment.
    • Alberto claimed the P500 could not be refunded due to expenses incurred and forfeiture of the remainder.
  5. Irregularities in the Bail Bond:

    • The bail bond contained a "Limitation of Liability" clause, which stated it was not valid for theft and robbery cases. This clause was deleted with a marking pen but was not signed or initialed.
    • Alberto confirmed that Philippine Phoenix Surety does not issue bonds for theft and robbery cases.
  6. Testimony of Alfredo Brigoli:

    • Brigoli, General Manager of the House of Bonds, testified that the bond was not approved because Alberto failed to bring the original bond for his signature.
    • The bond was not recorded, and the payment was not remitted to the issuer.

Issue:

  1. Whether respondent committed deceit and misrepresentation in handling complainant's case.
  2. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to account for the P500 entrusted to him.
  3. Whether respondent neglected his duty to exercise diligence in securing the bail bond.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.