Facts:

On May 5, 2004, David L. Almendarez, Jr. (the "complainant") filed a complaint-affidavit against Atty. Minervo T. Langit (the "respondent") before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), seeking the respondent's disbarment for acts unbecoming of a lawyer. The complainant, acting as the attorney-in-fact for his mother, Pura Lioanag Vda. de Almendarez, was the plaintiff in an ejectment case before the Municipal Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 2. The respondent served as the complainant's counsel in this case. During the proceedings, the defendant, Roger Bumanlag, deposited monthly rental payments for the property in dispute with the court's Branch Clerk.

On February 3, 1994, the trial court rendered a decision in the ejectment case based on a compromise agreement between the complainant and Bumanlag. Subsequently, on December 18, 1995, the trial court issued an alias writ of execution to enforce the judgment. A court order dated March 2, 2

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• On 5 May 2004, David L. Almendarez, Jr. (complainant) filed a complaint-affidavit before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking the disbarment of Atty. Minervo T. Langit (respondent) for “acts unbecoming a lawyer.”
• The complaint centered on allegations that respondent failed to account for funds received on behalf of his client, thus breaching his fiduciary duty.

The Ejectment Case and Client Representation

• Complainant, acting as attorney-in-fact for his mother, was the plaintiff in an ejectment case before the Municipal Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 2.
• Respondent served as the counsel for complainant in the case.
• Defendant Roger Bumanlag deposited monthly rentals for the disputed property to the Branch Clerk of Court, which were earmarked as client funds.

Withdrawal of Deposited Funds

• On 3 February 1994, the trial court rendered a decision in the ejectment case based on a compromise agreement between complainant and Bumanlag.
• On 18 December 1995, the trial court issued an alias writ of execution for the satisfaction of the decision.
• A court order dated 2 March 2000 granted respondent’s Omnibus Motion for Execution and Withdrawal of Deposited Rentals filed as complainant’s counsel.
• A second motion for withdrawal of deposited rentals was also filed by respondent and granted on 16 March 2000.

Discovery and Dispute Over the Funds

• In May 2003, complainant learned that respondent had withdrawn funds deposited by Bumanlag.
• Complainant obtained copies of the withdrawal slips from Felicidad Daroy, Officer-in-Charge Clerk of Court, confirming that two slips—one dated 10 March 2000 for ₱28,000 and another dated 19 April 2000 for ₱227,000—totaled ₱255,000.
• Respondent received the money personally after the withdrawals were processed through Daroy’s authorized representative, without informing complainant.
• A final demand letter was sent by complainant (through new counsel Atty. Miguel D. Larida) on 30 June 2003 for an accounting and return of the funds, but respondent failed to reply.

IBP Disciplinary Proceedings

• On 12 May 2004, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio A. Vinluan ordered respondent to submit his answer to the complaint, which respondent did not do.
• A mandatory conference scheduled initially for 15 November 2004 (later reset to 17 January 2005) was held, but only the complainant appeared.
• IBP Investigating Commissioner Caesar R. Dulay terminated the conference declaring respondent had waived his right to participate and directed the parties to file their respective position papers.
• Complainant submitted his position paper on 22 March 2005; respondent again took no action.

Findings and Recommendations by the IBP

• On 8 June 2005, IBP Commissioner Dulay submitted his Report and Recommendation finding that respondent failed to account for money held in trust for complainant.
• The Report considered the evidence “clear and convincing” to justify disciplinary action, concluding that respondent had committed gross misconduct under Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Although the initial recommendation was a one-year suspension, the IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty to a two-year suspension in its Resolution dated 17 December 2005.

Issue:

Accountability of Client Funds

• Whether respondent, in his capacity as complainant’s counsel, adequately accounted for and returned the ₱255,000 derived from withdrawn deposits.
• Whether the failure to inform the client and promptly account for the funds constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty.

Violation of Professional Ethics and Court Orders

• Whether respondent’s conduct in unilaterally withdrawing the funds, without the complainant’s knowledge or consent, amounted to a violation of Canon 16 and the related rules governing lawyers’ handling of client funds.
• Whether respondent’s failure to respond to the IBP’s orders—including the submission of an answer and participation in the mandatory conference—demonstrated a disregard for authority and due process.

Neglect in Pursuing Client Interests

• Whether respondent’s inaction, particularly in failing to pursue the execution of the writ issued in the ejectment case, further breached his duty of loyalty and zeal towards his client’s cause.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)