A.C. No. 2387 - Docena vs. Limon

On April 15, 1982, a complaint for disbarment was filed by Cleto Docena against Atty. Dominador Q. Limon, Sr.
The charges raised include malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of the attorney’s oath.

Atty. Limon represented the Docena spouses in an appeal (Civil Case No. 425 for Forcible Entry) pending before the Court of First Instance of Eastern Samar, Branch I.
During the pendency of the appeal, respondent required the parties to post a supersedeas bond amounting to P10,000.00 to stay the execution of the decision.

Complainant Cleto Docena secured a loan of P3,000.00 from the Borongan, Eastern Samar Branch of the Development Bank of the Philippines.
He borrowed P2,140.00 from a private individual.
An application for an agricultural loan of P4,860.00 was made at the Philippine National Bank (Borongan, Samar Branch), with respondent acting as guarantor.

Respondent sent a letter dated September 2, 1979, demanding the deposit of the balance of P4,860.00, alleging it was needed by the court to stay the execution of the appealed decision.
The contents of this letter indicate that respondent expected the Docena spouses to deposit the money themselves, reinforcing that the funds were not his personal fees.

On November 14, 1980, the Court of First Instance rendered a decision in favor of the Docena spouses.
Upon attempting to withdraw the supersedeas bond, complainant discovered that no such bond had been posted by respondent.
Although respondent initially promised to return the amount, he failed to comply despite repeated demands from the Docena spouses.

In his answer, respondent claimed that the P10,000.00 was his attorney’s fees for representing the Docena spouses.
This claim is contradicted by his own letter demanding the deposit of P4,860.00, which implies that the money was meant for a supersedeas bond and entrusted for deposit only.
His promise to return the money further indicates that he never held the funds as his rightful fee.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended a suspension of one year from the practice of law.
It was ordered that respondent must return the remaining amount of P8,500.00 (after an earlier payment of P1,500.00) within one month from notice, failing which, an indefinite suspension would be imposed.
The court, however, found these penalties too lenient given the gravity of the misconduct.

Respondent’s actions were in direct violation of pertinent ethical rules, namely Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) and Canon 16, Rule 16.01 (mandating the proper accounting for client funds).
The case underscores the high moral and professional standards required for the legal profession.

Whether Atty. Limon’s actions constitute malpractice, gross misconduct, and a violation of the attorney’s oath.
Whether the respondent’s assertion that the P10,000.00 was his attorney’s fees is substantiated by the evidence, especially in light of his own demand for a deposit of client funds.
Whether the handling of client funds, marked by deceit and misrepresentation, constitutes grounds for disbarment under the Code of Professional Responsibility.