JYQ Holdings & Mgt. Corp. v. Atty. Lauron
A.C. No. 14013
July 15, 2024
FACTS:
JYQ,
through its President, Johnny Y. Quisumbing, sought the legal services of Atty.
Lauron in April 2016 to facilitate the ejectment of informal settlers from the
property it bought along Matahimik St., Teachers’ Village, Diliman, Quezon
City. Atty. Lauron submitted a proposal to Quisumbing which the detailed the
expenses to be incurred in the undertaking amounting to P1.5M. Notably, the letter
stated that the eviction would be effected preferably without the need for a
court intervention. Several checks were issued to Atty. Lauron and in total, he
received P850K from JYQ. After receiving, JYQ alleged that Atty. Lauron failed
to evict the informal settlers by the agreed upon date of December 2016, give
an account of the money he received, and update the complainant on any actions
taken, despite insistent follow-ups. On March 6, 2017, Quisumbing sent a Letter
to Atty. Lauron indicating his intention to sever the attorney-client
relationship. He likewise demanded the return of the P850K. A Demand Letter,
dated September 7, 2017, was also sent to Atty. Lauron reiterating the contents
of the earlier letter. With both letters seemingly falling on deaf ears, JYQ
filed the present Complaint seeking Atty. Lauron’s disbarment and the return of
the P850K. The Complaint was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines –
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD).
ISSUE:
Whether
or not Atty. Lauron should be administratively sanctioned, even disbarred, for
the acts complained of in JYQ’s Complaint.
HELD:
Yes. Preliminarily,
the violations imputed against Atty. Lauron were committed well before the CPRA
took effect on May 20, 2023. Nevertheless, the CPRA’s transitory provision
expressly allows for its retroactive application:
“Section 1. The CPRA shall be applied to all pending and
future cases, except to the extent that in the opinion of the Supreme Court,
its retroactive application would not be feasible or work injustice, in which
case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern.”
Since the language and import of Canons 16, 17, and 18 of
the CPR were incorporated into the CPRA, there is no doubt about the latter’s
applicability in this case. Atty. Lauron cannot be held administratively liable
for not effecting the eviction of the informal settlers on the Subject Lot. In Tan
v. Atty. Alvarico, the Court explained that a lawyer enjoys the legal
presumption of innocence when a disbarment complaint is filed against them
until the contrary is proven with substantial evidence.: “as an officer of the
Court, he or she is presumed to have performed his or her duties in accordance
with his or her oath. The basic rule is that reliance on mere allegations,
conjectures, and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no
leg to stand on. Thus, failure on the part of complainant to discharge his or
her burden of proof by substantial evidence requires no other conclusion than
that which stays the hand of the Court from meeting out a disbarment order.
Through his written submissions, Atty. Lauron argued that he
and his team extended efforts to locate the owners of the Subject Lot,
facilitate the sale of the same in favor of Quisumbing, effect a survey of the
Subject Lot, and communicate with the informal settlers and relevant government
agencies who can assist in the eviction and relocation.
After carefully evaluating the averments of the parties and
the record, the Court does not find Atty. Lauron culpable of violating the CPRA.
Lawyers are bound to advance or defend their client’s cause, with full
devotion, genuine interest, and zeal in the pursuit of truth and justice.
In this case, Atty. Lauron was able to controvert the claims
of JYQ on his supposed failure to diligently perform his duties as the former’s
lawyer. Atty. Lauron was able to substantiate his defense with several
documents supporting his claim that legal work was actually performed in
pursuit of the eviction of the informal settlers over the Subject Lot. The Affidavit
of Colorado, an official of the UPAO, attested to the conduct of several
meetings between Atty. Lauron and the representatives of the informal settlers.
The same Affidavit was sent to the office of then Congressman Belmonte requesting
for the relocation of the informal settlers. Congressman Belmonte would then endorse
said Letter Request to the National Housing Authority which was received by
them on January 17, 2017. The foregoing pieces of documentary evidence were not
effectively rebutted by JYQ.
Atty. Lauron did not breach Canon IV, Section 6 of the CPRA
since JYQ was aware of the legal services being rendered. JYQ failed to
establish its claim that the miscellaneous and representation expenses were illegal.
However, Atty. Lauron acted contrary to Section 49 of the
CPRA for failing to account for all money received from JYQ and for not
delivering the remaining balance of the money in his possession upon JYQ’s
demand. When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose,
the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the
money was spent for the intended purpose. This obligation is enshrined in
Section 49.
Not all elements required to satisfy the valid exercise of
an attorney’s lien are present. Although Atty. Lauron did provide legal
services for JYQ, the way he exercised his attorney’s lien was improper. Under
the CPRA, the lawyer may enforce their attorney’s lien by filing a Notice of
Enforcement of Attorney’s Lien with the court or government agency where the
action or proceeding the lawyer rendered service for is pending. This is without
prejudice to the other remedies under the law or the Rules of Court:
Elements:
(1)
Attorney-client relationship;
(2)
Lawful possession of the client’s funds,
documents and papers; and
(3)
Unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees
Due to the severance of the attorney-client relationship
between JYQ and Atty. Lauron through the Letter, dated March 6, 2017, and the
unsubstantiated expenses incurred by the latter, the first two elements
required to satisfy the valid exercise of an attorney’s lien are absent.
Even assuming that all the requisites for a valid attorney’s
lien are present, Atty. Lauron cannot appropriate for himself his client’s
funds without proper accounting and notice to the client. Since there is an ongoing
disagreement as to the amount claimed by Atty. Lauron, he should not have
applied the funds arbitrarily.
Jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers misappropriate
client's funds and fail to return their client's money despite demand, the
Court imposed upon them the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. In
Burbe v. Magulta, the Court suspended the lawyer for misappropriating client
funds and failing to file a complaint. In Segovia Ribaya v. Lawsin, the Court
suspended the lawyer for his failure to perform his duties under a retainership
agreement and to return the money given to him by his client. Considering the
foregoing, the Court finds the penalty of suspension from the practice of law
appropriate. With respect to Atty. Lauron's serious offense of misappropriating
JYQ's funds, the Court finds it proper to impose the penalty of suspension from
the practice of law for nine months. For the less serious offense of failing to
render an accounting of JYQ's funds, the Court finds the penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for three months warranted.
No comments:
Post a Comment