Back to Search
JurisprudenceA.C. No. 11227

A.C. No. 11227 (Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5210) - MERCEDITA V. CUENCA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ALBERT VILLASECA.

En Banc
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

the case was up for sale and compelling his client to cough up the supposed bribe money, Atty.

Decision

Ruling

accordingly, exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. On the other hand, a lawyer is expected to maintain, at all times, a high standard of legal proficiency and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee. [43] The Court has consistently held that, in constructing Rules 18.03 and 18.04, the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation. [44] Thus, in Villafuerte v. Cortez , [45] the Court held that a lawyer is negligent if he failed to do anything to protect his client's interest after receiving his acceptance fee. In Garcia v. Atty. Manuel, [46] the Court penalized a lawyer for failing to inform the client of the status of the case, among other matters. So must it be. As for his demand for PHP 600,000.00, PHP 100,000.00 of which he claimed would be given to the judge who would decide the case, Atty. Villaseca committed calumny in breach of Rules 15.06 and 15.07 of Canon 15 of the CPR, to wit: CANON 15 A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client. x x x RULE 15.06 A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body. RULE 15.07 A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness. By imputing that the judge who would decide the case was up for sale and compelling his client to cough up the supposed bribe money, Atty. Villaseca tarnished the reputation of the members of the bench. His act tended to erode the trust and confidence of the people in our judicial system. He thus deserves to be severely punished. [47] Lastly, the Court finds Atty. Villaseca guilty of violating Canon 16, Rule 16.01 of the CPR which requires a lawyer to account for all the money received from the client, viz .: CANON 16 A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. RULE 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Atty. Villaseca did not account for nor returned the following amounts he received from his client, viz .: PHP 15,000.00 on August 4, 2003; PHP 4,000.00 on August 5, 2003; PHP 20,000.00 on August 15, 2003; PHP 1,000.00 on November 21, 2003; PHP 39,000.00 on January 29, 2004; PHP 100,000.00 on April 5, 2004; PHP 60,000.00 on April 12, 2004; PHP 40,000.00 on April 14, 2004; PHP 235,000.00 on April 16, 2004; PHP 20,000.00 on April 29, 2004; PHP 20,000.00 on May 18, 2004; and PHP 50,000.00 on May 25, 2004. [48] Verily, 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. Consequently, if not used accordingly, the money must be returned immediately to the client. As such, a lawyer's failur