Facts:

On September 12, 1983, Leticia Adrimisin (the complainant) filed a complaint-affidavit with the Ministry of Justice against Atty. Rolando S. Javier (the respondent), seeking his disbarment for deceit and misrepresentation. The events leading to this complaint began on July 12, 1983, when Leticia was introduced to the respondent by her cousin, Pablo Adrimisin. Leticia sought legal assistance to secure the release of her son-in-law, Alfredo Monterde, who was detained at the Caloocan City Jail on charges of qualified theft. The respondent advised her to file a bail bond, and Leticia informed him that she only had P500. The respondent accepted this amount, issued a receipt, and assured her that Monterde would be released the following day. However, Leticia later discovered that Monterde was not released as promised, and despite her repeated attempts to contact the respondent, he appeared to be avoiding her. Monterde was eventually released after settling the case with his employe...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• On 12 September 1983, Leticia Adrimisin (complainant) filed a complaint-affidavit with the Ministry of Justice seeking the disbarment of Atty. Rolando S. Javier (respondent) for deceit and misrepresentation.
• The complaint centered on the respondent’s alleged failure to secure the timely release of complainant’s son-in-law, Alfredo Monterde, from Caloocan City Jail when a bail bond was required in connection with a qualified theft charge.

Sequence of Events and Transactions

• Introduction and Request for Assistance
• On 12 July 1983, complainant was introduced to respondent by her cousin, Pablo Adrimisin.
• Complainant required legal assistance specifically to secure a bail bond for Monterde, who was detained on a qualified theft charge.
• Payment and Receipt
• Complainant indicated that she had only P500 which she provided to respondent as payment for the bail bond.
• Respondent acknowledged receipt of the P500 and issued a receipt to complainant.
• Respondent promised that the bail bond would result in Monterde’s release the following day, which did not occur.
• Subsequent Developments
• Complainant’s repeated visits to respondent’s office were met with apparent avoidance, implying negligence and delay in acting on her behalf.
• Monterde was eventually released following a settlement with his employer, not through the issuance of the bail bond as promised.
• After learning of the development, complainant demanded the return of her P500, which respondent did not provide.

Testimonies and Evidence Presented

• Respondent’s Testimony
• Denied being hired as legal counsel; rather, claimed that complainant only sought his assistance to secure a bail bond.
• Admitted receiving the P500 and claimed that he transferred the amount to Carlos Alberto, an insurance agent, for the bail bond transaction.
• Argued that there was no promise made to immediately secure Monterde’s release.
• Directed complainant to seek a refund directly from Alberto.
• Insurance Agent (Carlos Alberto)’s Testimony
• Confirmed that respondent approached him on 20 July 1983 to secure a bail bond for Monterde.
• Presented a copy of the personal bail bond issued by Philippine Phoenix Surety & Insurance, Inc., which detailed a premium of P940 plus additional costs amounting to a total of P1,219.
• Stated that the bond was genuine but not filed in court because complainant did not settle the balance.
• Mentioned that Pablo Adrimisin had also requested a refund of the P500, which was not possible due to incurred expenses and a forfeiture clause.
• Irregularities in the Bail Bond
• The bail bond, marked as Exhibit "1", contained a "Limitation of Liability" clause stating a limit of P20,000 and exclusion for theft and robbery cases.
• The clause “Not valid for theft and robbery cases” was deleted with a marking pen but was not signed or initialed, casting doubt on its validity.
• Additional Testimony Regarding the Process
• Testimony by Mr. Alfredo Brigoli, General Manager of the House of Bonds, revealed that pre-signed forms were provided to Alberto but approval was required for theft, robbery, and drug cases.
• Brigoli confirmed that the bond in question was not finally approved as proper signatures and clearances were missing, and the bond was not recorded or remitted.

Investigative Report and Recommendations

• The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through Investigating Solicitor Antonio G. Castro, conducted hearings and compiled a Report and Recommendation.
• The Report established that:
• Respondent had received the sum of P500 and failed to secure Monterde’s release as promised.
• The defense that a bail bond was secured was deemed a “mere afterthought” given the facts, including the insufficiency of the amount paid and the irregularities in the bond process.
• The OSG recommended that respondent be suspended from practicing law for no less than one year due to the charge of deceit and misrepresentation.

Issue:

Whether Atty. Rolando S. Javier committed deceit and misrepresentation by failing to secure Monterde’s release after receiving P500 from the complainant.

• Examination of the respondent’s role in handling the bail bond and whether he fulfilled his professional duty.
• Analysis of his claim that he merely assisted in obtaining a bail bond versus acting as legal counsel.

Whether the irregularities in the issuance, approval, and notarization of the personal bail bond amount to negligence in performing his duties.

• Consideration of the unsigned cancellation on the bond and its implications for its legality and enforceability.
• Evaluation of the procedural lapses, including the delayed issuance (bond issued on 20 July 1983 and notarized later).

The responsibility of a lawyer to account for trust funds (money received for a specific legal purpose) and the consequences of failing to do so.

• Whether respondent’s failure to return the P500 upon the complainant’s demand constitutes misappropriation.
• The impact such behavior has on the public confidence in the legal profession.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)