Case Digest (A.C. No. 8380)
Facts:
Arellano University, Inc. engaged Atty. Leovigildo H. Mijares III in January 2004 to secure a certificate of title covering a dried up portion of the Estero de San Miguel. The University gave him P500,000.00 in addition to his attorney’s fees for supposed expenses of “facilitation and processing,” and he promised to return the money if he failed to obtain the work. Mijares later reported completion of Phase I, but he unjustifiably failed to provide copies of MMDA approval despite repeated demands, made himself scarce, and refused to return the P500,000.00 even after the University terminated his services and demanded repayment through letters served on him in January 2006.
In his answer, Mijares alleged that he and the University agreed on courses of action involving endorsements and that he gave the P500,000.00 to Undersecretary Cesar Lacuna with the University’s conformity, claiming Lacuna later could not act because an earlier identical application had already been endorsed but not acted upon by the Mayor of Manila. He did not appear despite numerous settings during the IBP formal investigation. The IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty from disbarment to indefinite suspension, and ordered him to return the money and documents within six months, while endorsing his sworn statement to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court was presented with whether Mijares was guilty of misappropriating the P500,000.00 entrusted to him.
Issues:
- Was respondent Mijares guilty of misappropriating the P500,000.00 entrusted by his client for facilitation and processing of the titling matter?
Ruling:
The Court held Mijares guilty of the charged ethical violations and imposed the penalty of DISBARMENT. It directed him to return to Arellano University, Inc. all documents in his possession covering the titling matter.
The Court declined to follow the IBP recommendation to include a specific order directing return of the P500,000.00, reasoning that the disbarment proceeding should not be converted into a vehicle to recover alleged bribe money lost through a bad deal. It, however, ordered that Mijares’s sworn statement be forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman for whatever action it deemed proper.
Ratio:
The Court emphasized that a lawyer who receives money or property from a client becomes a mere trustee and must promptly account for it, keep it separate from personal funds, and return it upon demand if it is not used for its intended purpose. It found that Mijares’s refusal to return the P500,000.00, coupled with his failure to account and his continued silence despite the client’s search and demands, supported a finding of guilt. His defense did not inspire credence, particularly in light of his non-appearance during the investigation and his admission under oath that he bribed a government official to obtain favorable action for the titling of the property.
The Court also treated conversion of client funds as a gross violation of professional ethics. It further reasoned that there is no legitimate “facilitation” expense, and that permitting the disbarment case to become a mechanism for recovering bribe money would be improper.
Doctrine:
- A lawyer must promptly account for and return client money or property entrusted to him, and failure to do so upon demand supports a presumption of misappropriation.
- (Get Pro to unlock 2 more doctrines)