Title
Supreme Court
Reyes vs. Gubatan
Case
A.C. No. 12839
Decision Date
Nov 3, 2020
A lawyer borrowed money from a client and corporation, failed to repay despite demands, violating professional ethics, resulting in a three-month suspension.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 12839)

Allegations and Loan Transactions

Reyes alleged multiple loans made to Gubatan from October 3, 2006, to August 12, 2007, which totaled P88,000, P150,000, P17,000, P200,000, and P57,676, respectively. All these loans were supported by promissory notes. Despite signing these agreements, Gubatan failed to repay the amounts borrowed, leading Reyes to send a demand letter for payment totaling P769,014, inclusive of interest.

Respondent's Defense

In his answer, Gubatan claimed that he had a formal employment relationship with Reyes and the Corporation, which meant he was required to report to their office in Quezon City regularly. He alleged that the loans were voluntary and should be offset against the professional fees owed to him by Reyes for legal services. Gubatan also cited his refusal to draft an affidavit for Reyes against government officials as a catalyst for Reyes filing a complaint against him.

Investigative Findings

The Investigating Commissioner from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found sufficient evidence of Gubatan's indebtedness based on the promissory notes. His recommendation suggested censure for violating Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which prohibits lawyers from borrowing from clients unless the client's interests are adequately protected.

IBP Board's Resolution and Motion for Reconsideration

The IBP Board initially dismissed the complaint but later granted Reyes' motion for reconsideration, modifying the penalty to a reprimand based on Gubatan's violation of the CPR. An extended resolution reaffirmed that Gubatan had abused the trust of Reyes and the Corporation by failing to repay the loans and emphasized that their lawyer-client relationship was central to the case.

Court's Ruling on Administrative Liability

The Court affirmed the IBP's findings, noting the inherent trust in the lawyer-client relationship that Gubatan violated by borrowing from his clients. Specifically, his actions constituted a breach of Canon 16 of the CPR, which mandates that lawyers hold client money in trust and prohibits borrowing without protection for the client’s interests.

Impact of Gubatan's Actions

The Court highlighted that Gubatan's failure to repay his debts constituted gross misconduct, warranting sterner penalties than reprimand. Notably, the ruling emphasized that a lawyer must uphold the integrity and dignity of the profession, including fulfilling financial obligations.

Resulting Penalty

While the IBP suggeste

...continue reading

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.