Case Digest (A.C. No. 2024)
Case Digest (A.C. No. 2024)
Facts:
Salvador T. Castillo v. Atty. Pablo M. Taguines, A.C. No. 2024, March 11, 1996, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. By Resolution dated November 20, 1995 the First Division transferred the case to the Third; the ponente, who took his oath on October 10, 1995, was assigned to write the Decision.The complainant Salvador T. Castillo filed an administrative complaint (affidavit dated April 25, 1979) alleging that respondent Atty. Pablo M. Taguines received P500.00 from his client, Mrs. Dolores Licup, as part of a settlement of Civil Case No. 115265 (Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXXIX) and failed to deliver that sum to Castillo as agreed. Castillo alleged he learned from Mrs. Licup that she had given the P500.00 to Atty. Taguines (supported by a certification), that he personally attempted to demand payment at Taguines’ office, and that Taguines ignored demands and requests to remit the money; Castillo prayed for reprimand, suspension or disbarment.
Respondent filed a Comment and attached his counter-affidavit in the related criminal estafa investigation (I.S. No. 79-11822), admitting receipt of the P500.00 but denying any intent to embezzle it. He stated he never undertook to personally deliver the money, that Castillo or his lawyer knew his office location and ought to have called or come to claim the funds, and that he entrusted the money to an office employee (Angelito B. Yabut) to hand over upon claimant’s appearance. Respondent also asserted attempts to meet were frustrated and later denied absconding; he denied a confrontation at the Malacañang Assistance Center.
This Court referred the complaint to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation and recommendation by Resolution dated January 21, 1980. The Solicitor General set multiple hearings between August 1980 and August 1982 but most did not proceed because respondent could not reliably be notified or because parties failed to appear; respondent at times appeared but later became unlocatable and did not inform the Office or the IBP of changes of address.
Around September 1991 the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Despite repeated attempts to notify respondent by registered mail, he was often not located; on March 27, 1992 the complainant finally presented evidence (without counsel). The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution dated March 23, 1993, took note of respondent’s admission of receipt, the documentary proof of nonpayment, and the fact that respondent later issued a BPI check payable to cash which was dishonored for account closed. The IBP concluded respondent misappropriated the P500.00 and recommended suspension from the practice of law for one year.
The Supreme Court reviewed the record, adopted the IBP’s findings and conclusion, and imposed a one-year suspension effective upon notice. The Court relied on the lawyer’s fiduciary duty under Canon 16 and related rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility—while the Code was promulgated in 1988 after the incident, the older Canons of Professional Ethics (1917 and 1946) contained similar duties and obligations.
Issues:
- Did respondent Atty. Pablo M. Taguines commit professional misconduct by misappropriating the P500.00 entrusted to him for delivery to the complainant?
- If guilty, is suspension from the practice of law for one year an appropriate penalty?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)