OCA CIRCULAR NO. 34-2004, February 27, 2004

For this information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder is the Decision of the Court En Banc dated; April 30, 2003″
in Administrative Case No. 4724; entitled “Goretti vs; Atty. Joel M.
Grijaldo”,to wit:

The fiduciary duty of a lawyer and advocate is what places the
law profession in a unique position of trust and confidence and
distinguishes in from any other calling. Once this trust and confidence
is betrayed, the faith of the people not only in the individual buyer
but also in the legal profession as a whole is eroded. To this end, all
members of the bar are strictly required to at all times maintain the
highest degree of public confidence in the fidelity, honesty and
integrity of their profession.^[1]
In this administrative case for disbarment, respondent Atty. Joel M.
Grijaldo failed to perform his sworn duty to preserve the dignity of the
legal profession.

Complaint Goretti Ong is a widow residing in Talayan Village,
Quezon City. Sometime in the early part of 1996, she engaged the
services of respondent, a practicing lawyer in Bacolod City, as private
prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 52843 before the Metropolitan Trial
Court in Cities in Bacolod City, Branch 5, against Lemuel Sembrano and
Arlene Villamil for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.^[2]
During one of their civil obligation to complaint by paying the amount
of P180,000.00. Complaint accepted the offer on the condition that
payment shall be made in cash.

At the hearing held on July 17; 1996, respondent advised respondent to wait outside the courtroom. When he came out, he handed
to complainant cash in the amount of P100,000.00 and Metrobank Check
No. 070126386.2 for P30,000;00, postdated August 16, 1996, drawn by
Atty. Roger Reyes, counsel for the accused. Complainant objected to the
check payment and refused to settle the case, but lie assured her that
the check was drawn by a reputable lawyer. Complainant was prevailed
upon by respondent into signing an affidavit of desistance, but she
instructed him not to file it in court until the check is cleared.

Upon presentment on its maturity date, the check was dishonored
due to a stop-payment order from the drawer Complainant immediately
informed of the dishonor, and the latter told her that he will talk to
Atty. Reyes about it. Later, when complaint met with respondent in
Manila, he relayed to her Atty. Reyes offer to replace the check with
cash. Several weeks despite without any payment of the proceeds of the
checks, despite complaint’s repeated telephone calls to respondent.
Sometime in December 1996, she suggested that respondent move for a
hearing of the case, but he told her that courts are not inclined to set
hearings near the Christmas season.

On December 17, 1996, complaint personally went to Bacolod City
to inquire about the case. She was surprised to learn that the same was
dismissed as early as September 26, 1996.^[3] Apparently, respondent submitted her Affidavit of Desistance^[4]
and, on the basis therof the public prosecutor moved for the dismissal
of the case which was granted by the court. When complaint confronted
respondent, he admitted to her that he had already received the amount
of P80,000.00 from Atty. Reyes but he used the same to may for his
financial obligations.

Thus on April 2, 1997, complaint filed an Administrative Complaint against respondent for disbarment.^[5]

Complaint further alleged in her complaint the respondent
represented her in another case, entilted, “People of the Philippines
versus Norma Mondia,” also violation of B.P. 22, where she was the
offended party. Respondent approached the accused. Norma Mondia and
offered to delay the hearing of the case in consideration of the amount
of P10,000.00. However, Mondia did not have the amount of money.
Attached to the complaint is the affidavit of Norma Mondia attesting to
this fact.^[6]

Furthermore, Henry Tin, a former client of respondent, executed
an affidavit, which is attached to the complaint, alleging that he gave
respondent the amount of P3,000.00 for the purpose of posting his bail
bond, but respondent did not post his bail which resulted in Tiu’ s
arrest.^[7]

Likewise, a certain Luz Diinailig, whose affidavit is also
attached to the complaint, averred, that respondent represented her as
counsel for plaintiff in a civil case before the Regional Trial Court’
of Bacolcd City, Branch 52; that the case was dismissed by the trial
court; that the appeal filed by respondent to the Court of Appeals was
dismissed due to his failure to file the appellant’s brief; and that the
petition for review before the Supreme Court was denied for lack of
proof of service on the Court of Appeals, late filing and late payment
of docket fees. Moreover, Dimailig alleged that she gave respondent the
amount of P10,000.00 for settling the said civil case, but she later
learned, that he did not remit the money to the defendants or their
counsel.^[8]

On June 25, 1997, respondent was required to file his comment within ten days from notice.^[9] Respondent filed a Motion for Extension of Time, alleging that he has not received a copy of the complaint.^[10] On February 5, 1998,^[11]
complainant- furnished respondent a copy of the” complaint. However,
despite receipt of a copy,of the complaint, respondent still failed to
file his comment.

On October 19, 1993, respondent was required to show cause why
he should not be disciplinary dealt with or held in contempt for failing
to file his comment^[12]
Respondent filed a Compliance, stating that the copy of the complaint he
received from complainant was not legible. Complainant again furnished
respondent with a clearer and more legible copy of the complaint
including its annexes; but respondent still did not file his comment.
Consequently, on June 14, 2000, another show cause order was issued
against respondent.^[13]
Respondent replied by stating that the quality of the copy furnished
him by complainant was worse than the first one he received.

Dissatisfied with respondent’s explanation, respondent was
ordered to pay a fine of P1,000.00, .which he complied with on November
27, 2000.^[14] However, he again failed to file his comment and, instead, moved for additional time to file said comment.

On August 31, 2001, this case was referred to the Integrated.
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.^[15] The
records of Hie IBP show that respondent has not filed his comment to
the complaint On January 18, 2002^ the Investigating Commissioner,
Manuel A. Tiuseco, submitted his report recommending the disbarment of
respondent.^[16] However, in
its Resolution No. XV-2002-553 dated October 19, 2002, the IBP Board of
Governors modified the penalty of disbarment and recommended instead
respondent’s indefinite suspension from the practice of law for grossly
immoral conduct and deceit^[17]

After a careful review of the records of this case, we find the recommendation of Commissioner Manuel A. Tiuseco  well-taken.

It is clear that respondent gravely abused the trust and
confidence reposed in him by his client, the complainant. Were it not
for complainant’s vigilance in inquiring into the status of her case,
she would not have known that the same had already been dismissed on
September 26,1996. Respondent deliberately withheld this fact from her,
notwithstanding that she talked to him sometime in December 1996.

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that, a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
More specifically, Rule 18.03..and Rule 18.04 state:

Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him ; and his negligence in connection
therewith shall re-rider him liable.

Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable
time to the client’s request for information.

Respondent breached his duty to his client when he failed to
inform complainant of Hie status of the criminal case. His negligence
shows a glaring lack of the competence and diligence required “of every lawyer.^[18] His infraction is
rendered all the more deplorable by the fact that complainant is a
resident of Quezon City and!” the case was filed in Bacolod City. It was
precisely for this reason that complainant engaged the services of
respondent, a BacolocUbased lawyer, so that, her interests hi the case
may be amply protected:in. hex; absence. Respondent’s failure to look
after his client’s welfare in.the-case was a gross betrayal of his
fiduciary duty and a breach of the trust and confident which was reposed
in him. In a similar case, we held:

it is settled that a lawyer is not obliged to act as counsel
for every person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to
decline employment subject , however, to the provision of Canon 14 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the
cause of a client, he owes fidelity to such cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and confidence resposed on him. Respondent
Meneses, as counsel, and the obligation to inform his client of the
status of the case and to respond within a reasonable time to his
client’s request for information. Respondent failure to communicate with
his client by deliberately disregarding its request for an audience of
conference is an unjustifiable denial to its right to be fully informed
of the developments in and status of its case.^[19]

Worse, when respondent used the money which re received from
Atty. Reyes to pay for his own obligations, he violated Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that “[a] lawyer shall
hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.” Furthermore:

Rule16.01. A Sawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

Rule 15.02. 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, ho shall
have a lien over the funds anti may apply so much thereof as may be
necessary to satisfy his lawful lees and disbursements; giving notice
promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a Hen to the same
extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as
provided for In the Rules of Court.

Respondent’s misappropriation of the money entrusted to him and
his refusal to .account for it to his client despite repeated demands
were competent proof of his unfitness for the confidence and trust
reposed on him. His acts showed a lack of personal honesty and good
moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence. He held
the money in trust for his client as settlement of the case he was
handling. Upon receipt thereof, he was under obligation to immediately
turn it over, in His absence of a showing ‘hat he had a.li«n over it As
a lawyer, he should have been scrupulously careful in handling money
entrusted.to him in his professional capacity, because-a-high degree-of
fidelity and good faith of his part is exacted.^[20]

A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man
for money or malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good
fidelity to his clients. He is obligated to report-promptly the money
of his client that has come .into his possession. He should not
commingle it with his private property or use it for his personal
purposes, without, his client’s consent. Respondent, by converting the
money of his client to Ms own personal use without her consent, was
guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct Not only he degrade
himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he besmirched the fan- name of an
honorable profession.^[21]

Aside from violating the Code of Professional Responsibility,
respondent’s failure to” promptly turn over the money to his client and
his conversion of the same for his personal use rendered him liable for
contempt under Rule 138, Section 25 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

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.

Furthermore, respondent violated his oath of office and duties
as counsel when lie approached his client’s opponent and offered to
delay the case in exchange for money. His offer to delay the case would
have frustrated die interests of his client which he had sworn to
protect. As a-lawyer, respondent should avoid any unethical or improper
practices that impede, obstruct or prevent the speedy, efficient and
impartial adjudication of cases.^[22]

Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer
owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed on him. He must serve the client with competence and
diligence, and champion the letter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity,
care, and devotion Likewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the
interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his
clients rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to
the end that nothing betaken or withheld from his client, save, by the
rules-of law, legally, applied. This simply means that his client is
entitled.to ibc benefit of any.and every remedy and defense thatjs
authorized by fhs law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert
every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it
is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the
correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the
bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence
and eerier not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves
the ends of justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain the
respect of ‘the community to the legal profession.^[23]

Respondent’s act of propositioning his client’s opponent and
offering to delay the case against her was intended to benefit the
latter. Hence, such act amounted to double-dealing and conflict of
interest and was unethical practice of law. Attorneys, like Caesar’s
wife, must not only keep inviolate their client’s confidence, but must
also avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing, for only then
can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys
which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.^[24]

Finally, respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring
the directives of tills Court to file his comment constitutes utter
disrespect to the judicial institution. His conduct indicates a high
degree of irresponsibility. A resolution of this Court is not to be
construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially,
inadequately or selectively.^[25]
Respondent’s obstinate refusal to comply therewith not only betrays a
recalcitrant flaw in his character; it also underscores his disrespect
of our lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof

Any departure from the path which a lawyer must follow as
demanded by the. virtues of his profession shall not be tolerated by
this Court .as the. disciplining authority.. This is especially so, as
in the instant case, where respondent even deliberately defied the
lawful orders of the Court for him to file his comment on the complaint,
thereby transgressing Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires a lawyer to observe and maintain the
respect due the courts.^[26]

All told, respondent’s transgressions manifested dishonesty and
amounted to grave misconduct and grossly unethical behavior which caused
dishonor, not only to complainant, but to the noble profession to which
he belongs, for it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants for
the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar
betrays their trust and confidence.^[27] He has proved himself unworthy of membership in the legal profession and must, therefore, be disbarred.

WHEREFORE, for. dishonesty, grave misconduct, and’ grossly unethical behavior, respondent ATTY. JOEL GRIJALDO is DISBARRED from the practice of law. His name is ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is further directed to PAY complainant Goretti Ong the amount of P80,000.00 within ten (10) days from notice of this Decision.

This Decision shall take effect immediately. ‘Copies thereof
shall be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
respondent’s personal record; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines;
the Office of the. President; the Department of Justice; the Court of
Appeals; the Sandiganbayan; the Philippines Judges Association; and all
courts of the land for their information and guidance.

“SO ORDERED.”

Copy of the decision was received by respondent, under Registry Return Receipt. No. 52229 on June 5, 2003. Respondent’s motion for
reconsideration this decision was denied with finality on 29 July 2003.

__27__ February 2004.

 ^[2] Rollo, pp. 2-3.

 ^[3] Id., p. 8.

 ^[4] Id., p. 9.

 ^[5] Id., pp. 2-7.

 ^[6] Id., pp. 11-12.

 ^[7] Id., p. 13.

 ^[8] Id., pp. 16-18.

 ^[9] Id., p. 31.

 ^[10] Id., p. 32-34.

 ^[11] Id., p. 41.

 ^[12] Id., p. 45.

 ^[13] Id., p. 68.

 ^[14] Id., p. 84.

^[15] Id., p. 91.

 ^[16] Id., p. 94-97.

 ^[17] Id., p. 93.

 ^[18] Zarate-Bustamante v. Libatique, A.C. No. 4990, 26 September 2001, 366 SCRA 8.

 ^[19] Navarro v. Meneses, CBD A.C. No. 313, 30 January 1998, 285 SCRA 586.

 ^[20] Id.

 ^[21] Businos v. Ricafort, A.C. No. 43-49, 22 December 1997, 283 SCRA 407.

 ^[22] Manila Pilots Association v. Philippine Ports Authority, G. R. No. 130150, 1 October 1998, 297 SCRA 30.

 ^[23] Ellis v. Jacoba, A.C. No. 5505, 27 September 2001, 366 SCRA 91.

 ^[24] Philippine National Bank v. Cedo, A.C. No. 3701, 28 March 1995, 243 SCRA 1,6.

 ^[25] Gurrero v. Judge Deray, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1466, 10 December 2002.

 ^[26] Manila Pilots Association v. Philippine Ports Authority, G. R. No. 130150, 1 October 1998, 297 SCRA 30.

 ^[27] Id.