3/19/2017 A.C.No.

6317

TodayisSunday,March19,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

A.C.No.6317August31,2006

LUZVIMINDAC.LIJAUCO,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.ROGELIOP.TERRADO,Respondent.

DECISION

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

On February 13, 2004, an administrative complaint1 was filed by complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco against
respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado for gross misconduct, malpractice and conduct unbecoming of an officer of
the court when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him despite receipt of payment representing attorneys
fees.

Accordingtothecomplainant,sheengagedtheservicesofrespondentsometimeinJanuary2001forP70,000.00
to assist in recovering her deposit with Planters Development Bank, Buendia, Makati branch in the amount of
P180,000.00andthereleaseofherforeclosedhouseandlotlocatedinCalamba,Laguna.Thepropertyidentified
asLotNo.408C2andregisteredasTCTNo.T402119inthenameofsaidbankisthesubjectofapetitionfor
the issuance of a writ of possession then pending before the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna, Branch 24
docketedasLRCCaseNo.B2610.

Complainantallegedthatrespondentfailedtoappearbeforethetrialcourtinthehearingfortheissuanceofthe
Writ of Possession and did not protect her interests in the Compromise Agreement which she subsequently
enteredintotoendLRCCaseNo.B2610.2

Respondent denied the accusations against him. He averred that the P70,000.00 he received from complainant
waspaymentforlegalservicesfortherecoveryofthedepositwithPlantersDevelopmentBankanddidnotinclude
LRCCaseNo.B2610pendingbeforetheRegionalTrialCourtofBian,Laguna.

The complaint was referred3 to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.OnSeptember21,2005,theInvestigatingCommissionersubmittedhisreportfindingrespondent
guiltyofviolatingRules1.01and9.02oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitywhichprovide:

Rule1.01Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct.

Rule 9.02 A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to
practicelaw,except:

a)Wherethereisapreexistingagreementwithapartnerorassociatethat,uponthelattersdeath,moneyshall
bepaidoverareasonableperiodoftimetohisestateortothepersonsspecifiedintheagreementor

b)Wherealawyerundertakestocompleteunfinishedlegalbusinessofadeceasedlawyeror

c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes nonlawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if the plan is based in
wholeorinpart,onaprofitsharingarrangement.

In finding the respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
InvestigatingCommissioneropinedthat:

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. To be made the suspension or
disbarmentofalawyer,thechargeagainsthimmustbeestablishedbyconvincingproof.Therecordmustdisclose

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6317_2006.html 1/4
3/19/2017 A.C.No.6317
as free from doubt a case which compels the exercise by the Supreme Court of its disciplinary powers. The
dubiouscharacteroftheactdoneaswellasofthemotivationthereofmustbeclearlydemonstrated.xxx.

In the instant scenario, despite the strong protestation of respondent that the Php70,000.00 legal fees is purely
andsolelyfortherecoveryofthePhp180,000.00savingsaccountofcomplainantsubsequentactsandeventssay
otherwise,towit:

1.)ThePhp70,000.00legalfeesfortherecoveryofaPhp180,000.00savingsdepositistoohigh

2.)Respondentactivelyactedascomplainantslawyertoeffectuatethecompromiseagreement.

By openly admitting he divided the Php70,000.00 to other individuals as commission/referral fees respondent
violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not
divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law. Worst, by luring
complainanttoparticipateinacompromiseagreementwithafalseandmisleadingassurancethatcomplainantcan
stillrecoverafterThree(3)yearsherforeclosedpropertyrespondentviolatedRule1.01,Canon1oftheCodeof
Professional Responsibility which says a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.4

TheInvestigatingCommissionerthusrecommended:

WHEREFORE, finding respondent responsible for aforestated violations to protect the public and the legal
profession from his kind, it is recommended that he be suspended for Six (6) months with a stern warning that
similaractsinthefuturewillbeseverelydealtwith.5

TheIBPBoardofGovernorsadoptedtherecommendationoftheinvestigatingcommissioner.6

WeagreewiththefindingsoftheIBP.

Thepracticeoflawisaprivilegebestowedonthosewhoshowthattheypossessedandcontinuetopossessthe
legalqualificationsforit.Indeed,lawyersareexpectedtomaintainatalltimesahighstandardoflegalproficiency
andmorality,includinghonesty,integrityandfairdealing.Theymustperformtheirfourfolddutytosociety,thelegal
profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as
embodiedintheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.7

Lawyersareprohibitedfromengaginginunlawful,dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct8andaremandatedto
servetheirclientswithcompetenceanddiligence.9Theyshallnotneglectalegalmatterentrustedtothem,and
thisnegligenceinconnectiontherewithshallrenderthemliable.10

Respondents claim that the attorneys fee pertains only to the recovery of complainants savings deposit from
Planters Development Bank cannot be sustained. Records show that he acted as complainants counsel in the
drafting of the compromise agreement between the latter and the bank relative to LRC Case No. B2610.
Respondentadmittedthatheexplainedthecontentsoftheagreementtocomplainantbeforethelatteraffixedher
signature.Moreover,theInvestigatingCommissionerobservedthatthefeeofP70,000.00forlegalassistancein
the recovery of the deposit amounting to P180,000.00 is unreasonable. A lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonablefees.11

Respondents disregard for his clients interests is evident in the iniquitous stipulations in the compromise
agreement where the complainant conceded the validity of the foreclosure of her property that the redemption
periodhasalreadyexpiredthusconsolidatingownershipinthebank,andthatshereleasesherclaimsagainstit.12
As found by the Investigating Commissioner, complainant agreed to these concessions because respondent
misledhertobelievethatshecouldstillredeemthepropertyafterthreeyearsfromtheforeclosure.Thedutyofa
lawyertosafeguardhisclientsinterestscommencesfromhisretaineruntilhisdischargefromthecaseorthefinal
disposition of the subject matter of litigation. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorneyclient
relationshipandgivesrisetothedutyoffidelitytotheclientscause.Thecanonsofthelegalprofessionrequire
that once an attorney agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost
devotion.13

Respondentsadmission14thathedividedthelegalfeeswithtwootherpeopleasareferralfeedoesnotrelease
himfromliability.Alawyershallnotdivideorstipulatetodivideafeeforlegalserviceswithpersonsnotlicensedto
practicelaw,exceptincertaincases.15

UnderSection27,Rule138oftheRulesofCourt,amemberoftheBarmaybedisbarredorsuspendedonthe
following grounds: 1) deceit 2) malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office 3) grossly immoral conduct 4)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6317_2006.html 2/4
3/19/2017 A.C.No.6317
convictionofacrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude5)violationofthelawyersoath6)willfuldisobediencetoanylawful
orderofasuperiorcourtand7)willfullyappearingasanattorneyforapartywithoutauthority.

In Santos v. Lazaro16 and Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr.,17 we held that Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibilityisabasicpostulateinlegalethics.Whenalawyertakesaclientscause,hecovenantsthathewill
exerciseduediligenceinprotectinghisrights.Thefailuretoexercisethatdegreeofvigilanceandattentionmakes
suchlawyerunworthyofthetrustreposedinhimbyhisclientandmakeshimanswerablenotjusttohisclientbut
alsotothelegalprofession,thecourtsandsociety.

Alawyershouldgiveadequateattention,careandtimetohisclientscase.Onceheagreestohandleacase,he
shouldundertakethetaskwithdedicationandcare.Ifhefailsinthisduty,heisnottruetohisoathasalawyer.
Thus,alawyershouldacceptonlyasmuchcasesashecanefficientlyhandleinordertosufficientlyprotecthis
clientsinterests.Itisnotenoughthatalawyerpossessesthequalificationtohandlethelegalmatterhemustalso
giveadequateattentiontohislegalwork.Utmostfidelityisdemandedoncecounselagreestotakethecudgelsfor
hisclientscause.18

Inviewoftheforegoing,wefindthatsuspensionfromthepracticeoflawforsixmonthsiswarranted.Inaddition,
he is directed to return to complainant the amount he received by way of legal fees pursuant to existing
jurisprudence.19

WHEREFORE, Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of the
CodeofProfessionalResponsibility.HeisSUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)months effective from
notice,andSTERNLYWARNEDthatanysimilarinfractionwillbedealtwithmoreseverely.Heisfurtherorderedto
RETURN,withinthirty(30)daysfromnotice,thesumofP70,000.00tocomplainantLuzvimindaC.Lijaucoandto
submittothisCourtproofofhiscompliancewithinthree(3)daystherefrom.

LetcopiesofthisDecisionbeenteredintherecordofrespondentandservedontheIBP,aswellasontheCourt
Administratorwhoshallcirculateittoallcourtsfortheirinformationandguidance.

SOORDERED.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO

AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN

ChiefJustice
Chairperson

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ,ROMEOJ.CALLEJO,SR.

AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice

Footnotes

1Rollo,pp.24.

2PositionPaperforComplainant,id.at49.

3Id.at42.

4Id.at106107.

5Id,at107.

6Id.at102.

7Garciav.Bala,A.C.No.5039,November25,2005,476SCRA85,91.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6317_2006.html 3/4
3/19/2017 A.C.No.6317
8Rule1.01.

9Canon18.

10Rule18.03.

11Canon20.

12Rollo,pp.3739.

13 Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Dioneda, A.C. No. 5162, March 20, 2003, 399
SCRA296,303.

14Rollo,p.90.

15Rule9.02.

16445Phil.1,5(2003).

17A.C.No.5655,April22,2005,456SCRA508,514.

18Abierov.JuaninoA.C.No.5302,February18,2005,452SCRA1,10.

19Garciav.Bala,supranote7at9596Ferrerv.Tebelin,A.C.No.6590,June27,2005,461SCRA207,
217Macarilayv.Seria,A.C.No.6591,May4,2005,458SCRA12,26Dalisayv.Mauricio,supraat515
516.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/ac_6317_2006.html 4/4