Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1336)
Allegations Against the Respondent
The complainant contends that prior to his judicial appointment, respondent Salubre served as her legal counsel in a civil case and improperly handled funds meant for a legal transaction. Specifically, on December 26, 1990, under respondent's advice, complainant entrusted him with P45,000.00 for the purpose of consigning it to the trial court as repurchase money. Allegations assert that instead of consigning these funds, the respondent misappropriated the money by depositing it in his own account and used it for personal benefit without the complainant's consent.
Series of Loans and Extensions
Respondent Salubre executed multiple promissory notes promising to repay the borrowed amount, with a series of requests for extensions on payments from 1994 to 1995. These included asking for extensions due to delays in processing his loan. On August 21, 1996, the complainant issued a demand letter requiring repayment, which led to the issuance of two checks by the respondent that later bounced due to a closed account.
Procedural Developments
The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, which determined that the respondent's alleged misconduct constituted a serious charge under the Rules of Court. Despite the respondent's denial of wrongdoing and claims of a misunderstanding, the OCA recommended he be required to file a comment in response to the charges against him.
Respondent's Defense
Respondent Salubre argued that the funds were not for repurchase but were payment for legal fees and that the complainant had executed an Affidavit of Desistance indicating a resolution to the misunderstanding. However, the OCA found that the respondent's arguments lacked merit since they contradicted the evidence presented, including signed receipts.
Findings of the Office of the Court Administrator
The OCA concluded that the respondent demonstrated a willful failure to return the funds despite multiple requests, constituting a violation of Canon 16, which mandates lawyers to hold client funds in trust and promptly deliver them upon demand. The report emphasized that the respondent's eventual payment only occurred after the complainant initiated legal action against him for estafa (fraud).
Ruling and Recommendations
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the OCA, highlighting that the respondent's appointment as a judge did not absolve him of his
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1336)
Case Overview
- Nature of the Case: Verified complaint for disbarment against Judge Ismael L. Salubre.
- Date of Decision: December 19, 2000.
- Context: The complaint originated from allegations of misappropriation of funds entrusted to the respondent prior to his judicial appointment.
Parties Involved
- Complainant: Petra M. Sevilla.
- Respondent: Judge Ismael L. Salubre, Municipal Trial Court Judge of Tagum, Davao del Norte.
Allegations Against Respondent
- Misappropriation of Funds: Complainant alleged that prior to his appointment, respondent misappropriated P45,000.00, which was meant to be consigned to the court as repurchase money in a civil case.
- Breach of Trust: The respondent deposited the money into his personal account instead of consigning it and later withdrew it for personal use without the complainant's consent.
Chronology of Events
- Initial Payment: On December 26, 1990, complainant paid P45,000.00 to the respondent for consignment.
- Promissory Notes: Respondent issued a series of promissory notes from 1994 to 1995, promising repayment but consistently sought extensions.
- Demand for Payment: Complainant's daughter sent a demand letter on August 21, 1996, for a total of P77,787.59 including interest.
- Dishonored Checks: Respondent issued two checks in 1997 that were dishonored due to "account closed."
- Criminal Case: The complainant later filed a criminal case for estafa against the respondent, which was dismissed following an Affidavit of Desistance executed by the complainant.