GLORIA DELA ROSA OBIA, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. BASILIO M. CATIMBANG, RESPONDENT.

Obia versus Catimbang

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment or disciplinary action brought by Gloria Dela Rosa Obia, a stenographic reporter of the Municipal Trial Court of Buguey, Cagayan, against Attorney Basilio M. Catimbang, a member of the Philippine Bar. The complainant alleges that the respondent misappropriated the amount of 11,000 pesos which she entrusted to him for the repurchase of a parcel of land, and that he did so through deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in his office as attorney, and in violation of his oath as a lawyer. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court polices the conduct of lawyers under its constitutional power to discipline the bar, and how a lawyer's failure to account for money entrusted to him by a client is treated as a serious offense against the profession itself.

Procedural History

The complainant filed her sworn complaint on the thirtieth of January, 1985. The respondent answered on the fourth of May, 1985, admitting his receipt of the money but offering reasons for his failure to return it. The complainant replied on the twenty-seventh of May, 1985, disputing his factual allegations. The Supreme Court directed the Office of the Solicitor General to conduct an investigation of the complaint. The case was set for hearing several times, but the respondent never appeared and sent only motions for postponement on account of illness. The complainant was allowed to testify ex parte and she substantiated her allegations. The case was set for hearing for the last time on the sixteenth of February, 1987, and because the respondent again failed to appear, it was deemed submitted for resolution even without his evidence. On the fifth of March, 1987, the respondent sent the complainant's counsel the amount of 7,000 pesos by telegraphic transfer. The Office of the Solicitor General submitted its Report and Recommendation dated the twenty-third of February, 1990, and the case came before the Supreme Court as an administrative matter within its disciplinary jurisdiction over members of the bar.

Facts

Sometime in April 1981, the complainant's mother-in-law wrote to her that she could repurchase a parcel of land of about two hectares in Buhi, Camarines Sur, which her father had mortgaged to one Jose Rello for 11,000 pesos. The complainant borrowed money from friends and relatives at a high rate of interest to raise that amount, and on the twenty-second of May, 1981, she went to her mother-in-law's residence in Buhi, on the eve of the town fiesta.

On the twenty-sixth of May, 1981, the respondent arrived at the residence, and when he learned that the complainant had the money, he invited her to see the land. Finding the land satisfactory, he advised her and her mother-in-law to come to his law office in Naga City the following day with the 11,000 pesos. On the twenty-seventh of May, 1981, they went to his office, but Jose Rello was not there to sign the document of repurchase. The respondent told them that Mr. Rello was a busy man and advised the complainant to leave the money with him under proper receipt. Although she was at first reluctant, he assured her that he had an extensive practice with a respectable law office and would not swindle her with that amount, and he promised to return the money should Mr. Rello not sign. She gave him the 11,000 pesos, as evidenced by a receipt of that date.

On the twenty-ninth of May, 1981, the respondent told them he had not been able to contact Mr. Rello. The next day he arrived at the mother-in-law's residence and said that Mr. Rello had left for Manila. As the complainant was scheduled to return to Cagayan, the respondent prepared a document entitled Real Estate Mortgage which he asked the former owner of the land, Domingo Guido, to sign in the complainant's favor as mortgagee, with the assurance that after payment to Mr. Rello the mortgage would be released and the title would be sent to her. After about three weeks in Cagayan she received no document from him. She wrote to him on the eighteenth of June, 1981, asking for the deed of repurchase, but for about three months no reply came. On the thirteenth of September, 1982, she sent him a telegram demanding the return of her money or the document of repurchase signed by Jose Rello, but he still failed to answer. Demand letters dated the fourth of December, 1981, and the first of March, 1984, were also sent, and he failed to return the money. In the meantime her father, who had guaranteed the loan, was being pestered by creditors, quarrels ensued, and on the seventh of September, 1983, her father was shot dead by unidentified persons.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent committed the acts complained of, which would warrant the imposition of disciplinary action against him under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the respondent's acts constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in his office as attorney, in violation of his duty to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

Applicable Provisions

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:

Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

This provision supplies the very grounds for discipline — deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in the office of attorney, and violation of the lawyer's oath — and the Court measures the respondent's conduct against it.

Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, cited by the Court, provides:

A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

This rule bears on the case because the respondent's conduct in dealing with money entrusted to him, and his silence in the face of demands, discredited the profession he had sworn to serve.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the finding of the Office of the Solicitor General that the respondent's act of remitting 7,000 pesos to the complainant's counsel, after knowing that the case against him had been considered submitted for resolution, was a clear admission that he had the obligation to return the 11,000 pesos entrusted to him for the repurchase of the land. The Court noted that it took the respondent more than five years from the time he received the money on the twenty-seventh of May, 1981, before he returned part of it on the fifth of March, 1987. During that period he maintained a no-response attitude in the face of the demand letters, and even during the investigation he never personally appeared and kept his silence throughout. The reasons he gave in his answer for the delay — that the mother-in-law insisted the amount not be returned until Mr. Rello definitely refused to resell, and that the demand letters were referred to the mother-in-law because she was the one obligated to return the amount — the Court found flimsy and inexcusable in the light of the evidence and the findings of the Office of the Solicitor General.

On the second issue, the Court held that the acts committed by the respondent definitely constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in his office as attorney. These acts, the Court said, are noted with disapproval; they violate his duty, as a lawyer, to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and to engage in no conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. Such misconduct discredits the legal profession.

Doctrine

A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, and for any violation of the oath he is required to take before admission to practice. A lawyer who receives money from a client for a specific purpose and then fails to account for it, keeping it for years in the face of repeated demands, commits malpractice and gross misconduct in his office. His belated return of part of the money after the case is submitted for resolution is a clear admission of the obligation to return the whole. A lawyer owes a duty to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and to engage in no conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, and conduct that discredits the profession warrants discipline. Where the lawyer has, in effect, held on to the balance in the concept of a loan, he may be ordered to return it with interest.

Disposition

The Court suspended Attorney Basilio M. Catimbang indefinitely from the practice of law effective from notice, and ordered him to return to the complainant, within fifteen days from notice, the balance of 4,000 pesos with interest at twelve percent per annum from the thirteenth of September, 1982, to date of actual payment, under pain of a more severe penalty if he fails to do so.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a lawyer's misappropriation of money entrusted to him, and his silence in the face of demands, constitute malpractice and gross misconduct that discredit the legal profession. Examiners like to use this case on the grounds for suspension or disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138, and on the lawyer's duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility to engage in no conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.