Title
Supreme Court
Jinon vs. Jiz
Case
A.C. No. 9615
Decision Date
Mar 5, 2013
Atty. Jiz suspended for 2 years for neglecting client Gloria Jinon’s case, misappropriating P45,000, and failing to account for funds, violating professional ethics.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 198770)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • Complainant Gloria P. Jinon filed an administrative complaint for disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Leonardo E. Jiz before the Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
    • The complaint centered on allegations that Atty. Jiz neglected her case, misappropriated funds, and assigned her case to another lawyer without Gloria’s consent, in violation of the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
  • Chronology and Nature of the Dispute
    • Following the death of her brother Charlie in July 2001, Gloria entrusted two land titles—one for the Sta. Barbara Property located in Mangasina, Sta. Barbara, Iloilo, and the other for the Leganes Property at No. 12 Valencia St., Poblacion, Leganes, Iloilo (covered by TCT No. T-119598)—to her sister-in-law Viola J. Jinon.
    • Disputes arose after Gloria sold the Sta. Barbara Property resulting in disagreements over the proceeds. Viola subsequently refused to return TCT No. T-119598, prompting Gloria to seek legal assistance.
  • Engagement of Atty. Jiz and Fee Arrangement
    • Gloria engaged Atty. Jiz on April 29, 2003, to recover the title (TCT No. T-119598) from Viola and to address the issues regarding the properties.
    • She paid an acceptance fee of ₱17,000.00 at the time of engagement and later remitted an additional ₱45,000.00 as expenses for the transfer of the title.
    • In subsequent communications, Atty. Jiz assured Gloria that the transfer of the title would happen in her name but later revealed that another lawyer (Atty. Caras) was handling the case.
  • Allegations of Misconduct and Misappropriation
    • Gloria discovered that Atty. Jiz had been collecting rentals for the Leganes Property from its tenant, Rose Morado, amounting to ₱12,000.00 for the period from June 2003 to October 2004, but only ₱7,000.00 was later returned to her with an explanation that the balance of ₱5,000.00 would be applied as expenses for the title transfer.
    • When Gloria demanded the return of the ₱45,000.00 transfer fee and the ₱5,000.00 in unremitted rentals by a letter dated September 22, 2004, her demand went unheeded.
    • Despite numerous inquiries, Atty. Jiz failed to recover TCT No. T-119598 from Viola or effect the promised title transfer into Gloria’s name.
  • Atty. Jiz’s Response and Position
    • In his Answer and Position Paper, Atty. Jiz admitted to accepting Gloria’s case but contended that his mandate was limited to protecting her rights against Viola.
    • He claimed that his legal services included negotiating the sale of the Sta. Barbara Property for a fee of ₱75,000.00, recovering the title from Viola, and potentially filing an ejectment case against the tenant of the Leganes Property.
    • He maintained that the ₱17,000.00 was for consultation and preliminary legal services, and that the remaining ₱62,000.00 (of which part was paid) was for facilitating the sale of the property, while also denying any misconduct regarding the misappropriated ₱45,000.00 and ₱5,000.00.
  • IBP’s Investigation and Recommendation
    • The IBP Committee on Bar Discipline, led by Commissioner Cecilio A.C. Villanueva, conducted an investigation into the matter.
    • The Report and Recommendation issued on October 8, 2010, found that Atty. Jiz was remiss in updating his client, failing to respond to Gloria’s termination of his services, and neglecting his duty as mandated by Rule 18.04, Canon 18, which requires timely communication regarding the status of a case.
    • Commissioner Villanueva recognized that while some legal services (such as sending of demand letters and collecting rentals) were rendered, the fee of ₱17,000.00 was deemed sufficient remuneration for those services.
    • The Commission further noted Atty. Jiz’s disregard for the CBD’s orders to file pleadings on time and attend hearings, which was seen as a sign of disrespect to the judiciary and his fellow lawyers.
    • The IBP Board of Governors, on December 10, 2011, modified the recommendation and suspended Atty. Jiz from the practice of law for two (2) years, directing him to restitute ₱45,000.00 plus interest to Gloria.

Issues:

  • Whether Atty. Jiz should be held administratively liable for:
    • Neglecting his client’s case by failing to recover the title (TCT No. T-119598) from Viola.
    • Misappropriating funds—specifically, collecting and misallocating rental and transfer-related fees.
    • Disobeying the lawful orders of the Committee on Bar Discipline regarding the submission of pleadings and attendance at hearings.
  • Whether the amount of ₱45,000.00, together with the applicable legal interest, should be ordered for restitution to Gloria.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.