Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83171:57142&catid=1584&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:37:27+00:00

Document:
A.C. No. 9976 [Formerly CBD Case No. 09-2539], June 25, 2014 - ALMIRA C. FORONDA, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE L. ALVAREZ, JR., Respondent.
ALMIRA C. FORONDA, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE L. ALVAREZ, JR., Respondent.
The complainant is an overseas Filipino worker in Dubai. In May 2008, she returned to the Philippines to institute a case for the nullification of her marriage. The respondent was referred to her and the complainant agreed to engage his services for a fee of P195,000.00 to be paid as follows: 50% or P100,000.00 upon the signing of the contract; 25% or P50,000.00 on or before June 10, 2008; and 25% or P45,000.00 before the filing of the case.3 The complainant paid the amounts as agreed. The amount of P45,000.00 was even paid on June 10, 2008,4 after being informed by the respondent that the petition for the annulment of marriage was ready for filing.
The complainant further alleged in her complaint that the week after she signed the contract of service with the respondent, the latter requested for a meeting. Thinking that they were going to discuss her case, she agreed. But during the meeting, the respondent invited her to be an investor in the lending business allegedly ran by the respondent’s sister-in-law.6 The respondent encouraged her to invest P200,000.00 which he said can earn five percent (5%) interest per month.
The parties were called to a mandatory conference before the IBP-CBD on January 18, 2010 by the Investigating Commissioner.17 Thereafter, the parties were required to submit their respective position paper.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and the negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
CANON 15. – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep his client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
3. Respondent induced complainant to lend him money at 5% interest per month but failed to pay the same. This is admitted by respondent. Rule 16.04 provides that a lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Obviously, respondent borrowed money from his client and his client’s interest was not fully protected. In fact, respondent repeatedly failed to comply with his promise to pay complainant. The fact that he subsequently paid complainant more than the amount due from him as part of the settlement of the criminal complaint filed by her against him hardly serves to mitigate his liability. x x x.
“Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession.”26 Therefore, it is incumbent upon this Court to determine the full extent of the respondent’s liability, and to impose the proper penalty therefor.
It was established that the complainant engaged the professional services of the respondent. She expected the immediate filing of the petition for the nullity of her marriage after the full payment of attorney’s fees on June 10, 2008. However, the respondent filed the said petition only on July 16, 2009. The respondent gave out different reasons for the delay in an attempt to exculpate himself. At the end, the respondent admitted the delay and apologized for it. It cannot be gainsaid that the complainant through her agent was diligent in following up the petition. The different excuses proffered by the respondent also show his lack of candor in his dealings with the complainant.
Anent the P200,000.00 which was received by the respondent from the complainant, the respondent argued that it was a loan and not really meant to be the latter’s investment in any money-lending business. At any rate, the respondent issued 13 UCPB checks to serve as security for the alleged loan; among which, only two of said checks were honored by the drawee-bank while the rest were dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account. By reason of said dishonor, the respondent paid certain amounts in cash to the complainant as interest to the said loan. Ultimately, the respondent issued eight BDO checks as replacement for the dishonored UCPB checks. However, the BDO checks were also dishonored due to the same reason – they were drawn against a closed account.
In Baldado v. Mejica,42 the Court found Atty. Aquilino A. Mejica guilty of violating Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his negligence in protecting the interest of his client, and suspended him from the practice of law for a period of three months, with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
In Solidon v. Macalalad,43 the Court imposed on Atty. Ramil E. Macalalad (Atty. Macalalad) the penalty of six months suspension from the practice of law for violations of Rule 16.01 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In said case, Atty. Macalalad failed to file the required petition and did not account for the money he received, as attorney’s fee, from the complainant.
In Junio v. Atty. Grupo,44 Atty. Salvador M. Grupo was found guilty of violating Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for borrowing money from his client and was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one month.
In Wong v. Atty. Moya II,45 Atty. Salvador N. Moya II was ordered suspended from the practice of law for two years, because aside from issuing worthless checks and failure to pay his debts, he also had seriously breached his client’s trust and confidence to his personal advantage and had shown a wanton disregard of the IBP orders in the course of its proceedings.
In Lao v. Medel, we held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one-year suspension from the practice of law. The same sanction was imposed on the respondent-lawyer in Rangwani v. Dino having been found guilty of gross misconduct for issuing bad checks in payment of a piece of property the title of which was only entrusted to him by the complainant.
In light of the foregoing and the Court’s rulings in the cases mentioned above, the Court finds that the penalty of six months suspension from the practice of law is commensurate, with a stern warning that a repetition of any of the infractions attributed to him in this case, or any similar act, shall merit a heavier penalty.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose L. Alvarez, Jr. is SUSPENDED FOR SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law with a stern warning that a repetition of any of the offenses involved in this case or a commission of similar acts will merit a more severe penalty. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in Atty. Jose L. Alvarez, Jr.’s record as a member of the Bar, and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
8 Id. at 6-8, 12-13.
23 Manzano v. Atty. Soriano, 602 Phil. 419, 426-427 (2009).
24de Chavez-Blanco v. Atty. Lumasag, Jr., 603 Phil. 59, 65 (2009).
25Lorenzana v. Atty. Fajardo, 500 Phil. 382, 388 (2005).
26 Arma v. Atty. Montevilla, 581 Phil. 1, 8 (2008).
27Baldado v. Mejica, A.C. No. 9120, March 11, 2013, 693 SCRA 1, 13.
28Cerdan v. Gomez, A.C. No. 9154, March 19, 2012, 668 SCRA 394, 402.
29 Baldado v. Mejica, supra note 27.
30Co v. Atty. Bernardino, 349 Phil. 16, 23 (1998).
31Wong v. Atty. Moya II, 590 Phil. 279, 289 (2008).
32Overgaard v. Atty. Valdez, 588 Phil. 422, 431 (2008).
33 CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR AND FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
34 CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
35 Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep his client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
36 Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.
37 Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct.
38 349 Phil. 16 (1998).
39Anacta v. Resurreccion, A.C. No. 9074, August 14, 2012, 678 SCRA 352, 365.
40Seares, Jr. v. Gonzales-Alzate, A.C. No. 9058, November 14, 2012, 685 SCRA 397, 402.
41 Arma v. Atty. Montevilla, supra note 26.
42 A.C. No. 9120, March 11, 2013, 693 SCRA 1.
43 A.C. No. 8158, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 472.
44 423 Phil. 808 (2001).
45 590 Phil. 279 (2008).
46 591 Phil. 1 (2008).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.