ANDRADA vs.

CERA

FACTS:

A complaint was filed by Andrada (complainant) against Cera (respondent) for allegedly engaging
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct in violation of the Lawyer’s Code of Professional
Responsibility.

On 2009, respondent was hired by complainant to represent her in an annulment case. In an

annulment case, it is required to submit NSO copies of her children’s birth certificate. To do so, due to
non-registration of the birth certificate, complainant gave P3,000.00 to respondent for processing the
registration and issuance of the birth certificate with the NSO. Further, P10,000.00 was also given to
respondent for the hiring of a psychologist and the conduct of psychologist test for herself and her
children. However, in the year 2010, complainant found out that respondent never paid nor filed
applications with the NSO. Thus, she demanded the surrender of the receipt and the return of the
P10,000.00. The respondent refused to heed the demands, thus, the institution of the this case.

The IBP found that the respondent had engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful
conduct against his client’s interest in violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and
is guilty of misappropriation of funds.

ISSUE: WON respondent is liable for violation of Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

Yes, the respondent is liable.

The Supreme Court sustained the findings of the IBP and held that a lawyer, shall exercise due
diligence in protecting his client’s rights. Failure to exercise such degree of vigilance of a good father
makes a lawyer unworthy.

It is apparent in this case, that respondent di not exert any effort on his client’s case and
completely neglected his obligation to his client. The respondent lied to the complainant and also failed
to comply with their agreement, thus, in violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18
which respectively states that a lawyer is prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
deceitful conduct; and lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

Furthermore, the respondent also failed to live up his duties as a lawyer when he unlawfully
withheld complainant’s money, in violation of Canon 16 of the CPR that holds a lawyer in trust of all
moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.

PENALTY: SUSPENDED from practice of law for one (1) year.