Title
Anacay vs. Alberto
Case
A.C. No. 6766
Decision Date
Aug 4, 2021
A lawyer repeatedly borrowed money from his elderly, blind client, failed to repay, and violated professional ethics, leading to a two-year suspension.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 6766)

Facts:

  1. Retainer Agreement and Initial Payments

    • On June 24, 2002, complainant Moises Anacay retained the legal services of respondent Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto for a criminal complaint against Josephine Marmo-Esguerra and Exzur Marmo.
    • The agreed fees were P30,000.00 as an acceptance fee and P2,000.00 per court appearance.
    • Complainant paid P15,000.00 on June 24, 2002, and settled the balance on July 8, 2002.
    • Respondent requested an additional P30,000.00 as advance appearance fees, which complainant paid via check. However, complainant was unable to travel abroad due to his wife's illness and requested the return of the check, but respondent had already encashed it.
  2. Loans and Additional Payments

    • On October 20, 2002, respondent borrowed P25,000.00 from complainant.
    • On November 16, 2002, respondent billed complainant P7,000.00 for legal services, which was deducted from the borrowed amount, leaving a balance of P18,000.00.
    • Respondent borrowed an additional P2,000.00 without providing a receipt.
    • On May 5, 2003, respondent requested P42,000.00 for filing fees and other expenses, which complainant paid.
    • On May 15, 2003, respondent borrowed P50,000.00, offering his lot as collateral, but failed to deliver the title.
    • On June 18, 2003, respondent borrowed another P30,000.00.
  3. Termination of Services and Demand for Payment

    • On September 24, 2003, complainant relieved respondent as his counsel.
    • Complainant demanded repayment of P202,000.00, but respondent ignored the demands.
    • Complainant referred the matter to a lawyer for collection, but respondent disregarded the demand letter.
  4. Failure to Comply with Court Orders

    • The Court required respondent to file a comment on the complaint, but he ignored the order.
    • The Court imposed a fine of P1,000.00 and later ordered his arrest for non-compliance.
    • Respondent was arrested and detained but later submitted a Manifestation of Compliance.
  5. Respondent’s Defense

    • Respondent claimed he prepared several legal documents for complainant and denied being remiss in his duties.
    • He asserted that complainant did not inform him of his termination as counsel and proposed that his loans be deducted from his attorney’s fees.

Issue:

  1. Whether respondent violated Rule 1.01 and Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by borrowing money from his client without protecting the client’s interests.
  2. Whether respondent engaged in deceitful conduct by repeatedly borrowing money from complainant and failing to repay despite demands.
  3. Whether respondent’s actions warrant disciplinary action, including suspension or disbarment.

Ruling:

The Court found respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01 and Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent’s actions constituted deceitful conduct and an abuse of his client’s trust and confidence. The Court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law, with a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts would result in a more severe penalty.

Ratio:

  1. Violation of Rule 16.04

    • Rule 16.04 prohibits lawyers from borrowing money from clients unless the client’s interests are fully protected.
    • Respondent borrowed substantial amounts from complainant without securing his interests, as evidenced by the lack of collateral or documentation.
  2. Violation of Rule 1.01

    • Rule 1.01 prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
    • Respondent’s repeated borrowing of money from complainant, an elderly blind man, and his failure to repay despite demands, constituted deceitful conduct and an abuse of trust.
  3. Appropriate Penalty

    • Disbarment is not warranted in this case, as a less severe penalty would suffice.
    • The Court imposed a two-year suspension, consistent with precedents where lawyers borrowed money from clients and failed to repay.
  4. Trust and Confidence in Lawyer-Client Relationship

    • The lawyer-client relationship is based on trust and confidence, which respondent abused by exploiting complainant’s vulnerability.
    • The Court emphasized that lawyers must uphold the highest standards of integrity and morality.


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.