Title
Arellano University, Inc. vs. Mijares III
Case
A.C. No. 8380
Decision Date
Nov 20, 2009
Atty. Mijares misappropriated P500,000 from Arellano University for property titling, failed to account for funds, admitted bribery, and was disbarred for violating professional ethics.
A

Case Summary (A.C. No. 8380)

The Facts of the Case

In January 2004, Arellano University engaged Mijares to secure a certificate of title for a property it occupied, which was part of a Deed of Exchange between the University and the City of Manila from 1958. The University provided Mijares with essential documents and agreed to pay him an additional sum of P500,000.00 for "facilitation and processing" costs beyond his legal fees. Upon informing the University of the completion of Phase I of the title application, Mijares failed to provide the requested documentation and subsequently became unresponsive. Despite a formal termination of services and demands for the return of the funds, Mijares did not return the P500,000.00.

Respondent's Defense

In his answer to the complaint, Mijares claimed that there was a mutual understanding for multiple facilitation payments totaling P500,000.00 for various actions necessary for the titling process. He alleged that he passed the funds to a government official, Undersecretary Cesar Lacuna, for a favorable endorsement. Moreover, he contended that a previous application for the same property was denied, affecting his ability to secure the approval. However, he provided no evidence to substantiate these claims and did not appear at the investigation hearings.

Investigation and Findings

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) designated Atty. Dennis B. Funa as the Commissioner tasked with investigating the complaint. Mijares’s refusal to testify or provide evidence led to a one-sided case, where the evidence presented by Arellano University remained unchallenged. The IBP Report found Mijares guilty of failing to account for the funds and engaging in unethical conduct, including the admission of bribing a government official.

Court’s Ruling

The Court referred to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, highlighting the grounds for disbarment based on deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct. It emphasized that a lawyer must account for funds entrusted to them and use them solely for their intended purposes. The Court determined that Mijares’s actions constituted gross violations of professional ethics and concluded that the evidence supporting the charges against him was compelling.

Despite the IBP's initial recommendation for an indefinite suspension, the Court opted for d

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.