A.C. No. 10178 - KIMELDES GONZALES, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. PRISCO B. SANTOS.

Ruling

Accordingly, and upon demand by complainant's representative, Josephine, respondent was expected to timely deliver the title to her. This, respondent failed to do. Respondent's excuse that he neither knew about nor participated in his nieces' scheme also deserves scant consideration. We give merit to the IBP's findings and conclusion. First, the mortgage was executed only five days after complainant's title had been issued over the parcel of land. At this point, complainant had not even seen the title. In fact, respondent did not deny that Josephine had repeatedly demanded for its surrender. Second, upon his alleged discovery of the fraudulent mortgage, respondent readily accepted Norena's claim. Josephine's repeated follow-ups should have alerted respondent to irregularities attending the mortgage. Respondent's failure to ensure the timely turnover of the title to complainant and/or her representative led to, if not facilitated, the constitution of the fraudulent mortgage. Neither does it appear that respondent took steps to verify his niece's claim. We are thus inclined to agree with the IBP's conclusion that respondent's nieces are used here as mere scapegoats and that respondent had a hand in the fraudulent mortgage. [17] Regarding the second charge, we concur with the IBP and find respondent guilty of abusing his client's trust and confidence. Canon 17 of the CPR directs a lawyer to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. In the present case, it is uncontested that respondent received an additional P20,000.00 from complainant. Respondent, however, denied that it is payment for the filing of an ejectment suit against the occupants of complainant's property. Nonetheless, he does not proffer any reason to explain why such amount was given him. As this is a "he said, she said" scenario, we find complainant's version more logical and convincing. We agree with the IBP that it is incredible for respondent to receive an additional P20,000.00 without a clear reason for its payment. As complainant stated, respondent received P20,000.00 through his ATM account on June 20, 2007 for the ejectment case and even acknowledged its receipt on June 22, 2007. [18] We find it more likely that the amount of P20,000.00 was for a given purpose, that is, to file an ejectment suit. Respondent violated his client's trust when he received said amount despite knowing that he could not file the ejectment suit because some of the occupants of complainant's property are his friends. Indeed, he was not able to file the case but without informing complainant of his reasons. As for the proper penalty, we adopt the recommendation of the IBP to suspend respondent from the practice of law for three years. In Lopez v. Limos , [19] we imposed a similar penalty for violations of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Cannon 11, Rule 12.04 of Canon 12, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR. [20] Moreover, since respondent refused to file the suit req