A.C. No. 12833 - SALVACION C. ROMO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ORHEIM T. FERRER.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Commission hereby respectfully recommends that Respondent ATTY. ORHEIM T. FERRER be suspended for two (2) years from the practice of law, with a stern warning that similar violations in the future shall be dealt with more severely. It is further recommended that Respondent be further ordered to return to Complainant the total amount of Php295,000.00 which he has unjustly misappropriated with 6% interest from demand on November 16, 2012. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. [19] (Emphases supplied.) On September 28, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commission's factual findings and recommendations, [20] viz .: RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to impose upon the Respondent the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years and Ordered to Return the amount of P295,000.00 with 6% interest from demand . [21] (Emphasis and italics in the original.) RULING The Court adopts the IBP's findings with modification as to the penalty. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. [22] The duty to render an accounting is absolute. The failure to do so upon demand amounts to misappropriation which is a ground for disciplinary action not to mention the possible criminal prosecution. [23] Here, convincing evidence exists that Atty. Ferrer represented Salvacion in a criminal case and that he received funds for her in the total amount of P375,000.00. However, Atty. Ferrer remitted only P80,000.00 and unjustifiably refused to return the balance of P295,000.00, despite repeated demands. The special power of attorney, acknowledgment receipts, the memorandum of agreement and the demand letters established these findings. In stark contrast, Atty. Ferrer did not disprove these evidence but merely argued that he gave the amounts to Salvacion's daughter. Yet, Atty. Ferrer failed to substantiate this theory. We stress that bare assertion is not evidence. [24] As the IBP aptly observed, Atty. Ferrer should know the law better than his client, and there is no other person to blame but him for not requiring receipts. At any rate, Atty. Ferrer admitted his obligation and promised to return the funds on a specific date. The acknowledgment of debt is voluntary and Salvacion's supposed threat to file a disbarment case to enforce her legal claim against Atty. Ferrer does not vitiate his consent to the agreement. Atty. Ferrer even subsequently offered to pay his obligation on installment basis. Verily, Atty. Ferrer breached Salvacion's trust when he failed to render an account of her funds upon demand. In determining the imposable penalty against an erring lawyer, the purpose of disciplinary proceedings must be considered, which is to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable, and reliable men in whom courts and clients may rep