The lawyer and the moneys or properties of his clients
• Very patently, Atty. Frial was remiss in his obligation of taking good care of the
• CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS
CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS PROFESSION.
• Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received
for or from the client.
• Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his
own and those of others kept by him.
• Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent
on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the
Rules of Court.
• Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's
interest are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.
Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice,
he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.
• Rule 138 Sec. 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. - An attorney
shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject matter
of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the professional
standing of the attorney.
• Rule 138 Sec. 25. Unlawful retention of client's funds; contempt. - When an attorney
unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded, he may
be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his
official transactions; but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a
criminal prosecution.
• Rule 138 Sec. 37. Attorneys' liens. - An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds,
documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession and
may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, and
may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof.
• He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all judgments for the payment of
money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured
in a litigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall have caused a
statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of the court
rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall have caused written
notice thereof to be delivered to his client and to the adverse party; and he shall
have the same right and power over such judgments and executions as his client
would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment of his just fees and
disbursements.
Lawyer took custody of 2 cars subject of preliminary attachment
• According to Atty. Salomon, the attaching sheriff of Manila, instead of depositing the
attached cars in the court premises, turned them over to Atty. Frial, Lo’s counsel.
attached cars. He also allowed the use of the Nissan Sentra car by persons who had
no business using it. He did not inform the court or at least the sheriff of the
destruction of the Volvo car. What is worse is that he took custody of them without
so much as informing the court, let alone securing, its authority. - Atty. Salomon Jr.
v. Atty. Frial, A.C. No. 7820 [2008]
Lawyer withdraw money deposited to the Branch Clerk of Court without informing his client
• Complainant, through his new counsel Atty. Miguel D. Larida, sent respondent on 30
June 2003 a final demand letter for the accounting and return of the P255,000.
Respondent failed to reply.
• Respondent committed a flagrant violation of his oath when he received the sum of
money representing the monthly rentals intended for his client, without accounting
for and returning such sum to its rightful owner. Respondent received the money in
his capacity as counsel for complainant. Therefore, respondent held the money in
trust for complainant.
• Respondent should have immediately notified complainant of the trial court’s
approval of the motion to withdraw the deposited rentals. Upon release of the funds
to him, respondent could have collected any lien which he had over them in
connection with his legal services, provided he gave prompt notice to complainant.
A lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client’s money for himself by
the mere fact that the client owes him attorney’s fees. In this case, respondent did
not even seek to prove the existence of any lien, or any other right that he had to
retain the money.
• Respondent’s failure to turn over the money to complainant despite the latter’s
demands gives rise to the presumption that he had converted the money for his
personal use and benefit. - Almandrez Jr. v. Atty. Langit, A.C. No. 7057 [2006]
Business transaction between lawyer and client is discourage
• As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business
transaction must be characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. The measure
of good faith which an attorney is required to exercise in his dealings with his client
is a much higher standard that is required in business dealings where the parties
trade at "arms length." Business transactions between an attorney and his client are
disfavored and discouraged by the policy of the law. Hence, courts carefully watch
these transactions to assure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his client.
This rule is founded on public policy for, by virtue of his office, an attorney is in an
easy position to take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client. Thus, no
presumption of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is considered in an
attorney’s favor. - Chua and Hsia v. Atty. Mesina Jr., A.C. No. 4904 [2004]
No services rendered, money must be returned
• It is now clear to us that since respondent did not take any step to assist complainant
in her case, charging P56,000.00 is improper. While giving legal advice and opinion
on complainant’s problems and those of her family constitutes legal service,
1
 however, the attorney’s fee must be reasonable. Obviously, P56,000.00 is
exorbitant.
• We cannot understand why respondent initially demanded P8,000.00 as filing fee
from complainant when he very well knew that the docket fee for Civil Case No. 00-
044 had been paid. If it was intended as a docket fee for another case, why did he
not file the corresponding complaint?
• Respondent lawyer did not return the money to complainant despite demand
following his failure to file the case. - Dalisay v. Atty. Mauricio, Jr., A.C. No. 5655
[2006]
Issuing and keeping of receipts are practices of accountability
• Ethical and practical considerations made it both natural and imperative for him to
issue receipts, even if not demanded, and to keep copies of the receipts for his own
records. He was all too aware that he was accountable for the moneys entrusted to
him by the clients, and that his only means of ensuring accountability was by issuing
and keeping receipts. - Tarog v. Atty. Ricafort, A.C. No. 8253 [2011]
When to deliver funds of clients
• Thus, having obtained the funds from the [client] in the course of his professional
employment, [a lawyer] had the obligation to deliver such funds to his clients
(a) when they became due, or
(b) upon demand.
- Tarog v. Atty. Ricafort, A.C. No. 8253 [2011]
Lawyer should not deposit the funds in his personal account
• For him to deposit the amount of P65,000.00 in his personal account without the
consent of the Tarogs and not return it upon demand, and for him to fail to file the
memorandum and yet not return the amount of P15,000.00 upon demand
constituted a serious breach of his fiduciary duties as their attorney. He reneged on
his duty to render an accounting to his clients showing that he had spent the
amounts for the particular purposes intended. - Tarog v. Atty. Ricafort, A.C. No. 8253
[2011]
• Depositing it in his personal account with the consent of client is ethical?
Lending money to client
• Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as borrowers,
respondent violated Rule 16.04:
• 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.
Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice,
he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.
• The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only exception is,
when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses (such as filing
fees, stenographer’s fees for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or premium
for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the client. - Linsangan v.
Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672 [2009]
Purpose of prohibiting lending of money to client
• The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s independence of mind so that the free
exercise of his judgment may not be adversely affected. It seeks to ensure his
undivided attention to the case he is handling as well as his entire devotion and
fidelity to the client’s cause. - Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672 [2009]
Ill-effects of lending money to clients
• If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the client’s case, the
lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional
stake in its outcome.
• Either of these circumstances may:
a. lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client, or
b. to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the verdict to the
prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the client’s
cause. - Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672 [2009]
Rule 16.01 includes money judgment in favor of client
• There is no question that the money or property received by a lawyer for her client
properly belongs to the latter. Conformably with these canons of professional
responsibility, we have held that a lawyer is obliged to render an accounting of all
the property and money she has collected for her client. This obligation includes the
prompt reporting and accounting of the money collected by the lawyer by reason of
a favorable judgment to his client. - Bayonla v. Atty. Reyes, A.C. No. 4808 [2011]
Lawyer and client must agree with the amount before retaining lien is validly applied
• In both cases, however, it is to be assumed that the client agrees with the lawyer
in the amount of attorney's fees. In case of a disagreement, or when the client
disputes the amount claimed by the lawyer for being unconscionable, the lawyer
should not arbitrarily apply the funds in his possession to the payment of his fees;
instead, it should behoove the lawyer to file, if he still deems it desirable, the
necessary action or the proper motion with the proper court to fix the amount of his
attorney's fees. If a lawyer were allowed to unilaterally apply the funds in his hands
in payment of his claimed compensation even when there is a disagreement
between him and his client would not only be violative of the trust relationship
between them but can also open the door to possible abuse by those who are less
than mindful of their fiduciary duty. - J.K. Mercado and Sons v. Atty. De Vera and
Atty. Bandalan, A.C. No. 3066 [2001]
Misuse of filing fee violates the rule that lawyers must be scrupulously careful in handling
money entrusted to them in their professional capacity
• Central to this case are the following alleged acts of respondent lawyer: (a) his non-
filing of the Complaint on behalf of his client and (b) his appropriation for himself of
the money given for the filing fee. - Burbe v. Atty. Magulta, AC No. 99-634 [2002]
2
Appropriating the entire award is a violation of Canon 16 and Rule 16.01
• The Court is not oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal services he
has extended to his client but such right should not be exercised whimsically by
appropriating to himself the money intended for his clients. There should never be
an instance where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to the fees of his
own lawyer. - Rivera v. Atty. Angeles, A.C. No. 2519 [2000]

Obligation of lawyer once the money or property intended for his client is received
• should be reported and accounted for promptly and
• should not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or
• be used by him.
- Judge Angeles v. Atty. Uy, Jr., A.C. No. 5019. April 6, 2000

Misappropriation is not required

• The records do not clearly show whether Attorney Uy had in fact appropriated the
said amount; in fact, Mrs. Del Rosario acknowledged that she had received it on
February 12, 1999. They do show, however, that respondent failed to promptly
report that amount to her. This is clearly a violation of his professional
responsibility.
• Verily, the question is not necessarily whether the rights of the clients have been
prejudiced, but whether the lawyer has adhered to the ethical standards of the bar.
- Judge Angeles v. Atty. Uy, Jr., A.C. No. 5019. April 6, 2000

Avoid keeping the money of client

• Keeping the money in his possession without his client's knowledge only provided
Atty. Uy the tempting opportunity to appropriate for himself the money belonging
to his client. This situation should, at all times, be avoided by members of the bar.
Like judges, lawyers must not only be clean; they must also appear clean. This way,
the people's faith in the justice system would remain undisturbed. - Judge Angeles
v. Atty. Uy, Jr., A.C. No. 5019. April 6, 2000