BENITO SACO, COMPLAINANT, VS. DONATO A. CARDONA, RESPONDENT.

Administrative complaint against a lawyer for misconduct, for
having allegedly misappropriated or converted money belonging to his
client.

It is not disputed that the herein complainant, Benito Saco,
while a member of the municipal police force of Borongan, Samar, was
charged with the offense of Infidelity in the custody of prisoner before
the Court of First Instance of Samar. As a consequence of the filing
of the case, Benito Saco was suspended from his position, effective May
16, 1954. After trial of the case, where the accused was assisted by
herein respondent, Atty. Donato A. Cardona, as counsel, Benito Saco was
acquitted.^[1] The decision, however, did not include payment of back salaries. So, a motion for reconsideration was filed,^[2]
and on November 17, 1955, the court amended its decision so as to
entitle the accused Benito Saco to collect his back salaries
corresponding to the period of his suspension,^[3] which amounted to P903.33.

Two years later, or on May 31, 1957, Benito Saco complained to
the Court that the respondent had cheated him by misappropriating the
amount of P601.22 due him as his share in the amount collected as back
salaries since their agreement was that the respondent will get only 1/3
of the amount corresponding to his back salaries for his professional
services.^[4]

Required to answer, the respondent stated that their agreement
was for the complainant to get 1/3 of the money collected, minus 10%
thereof for expenses in collecting the same; and that he had already
given the complainant the amount of P220.00 pursuant to such sharing
agreement.^[5]

The matter was referred to the Solicitor General, for
investigation, report and recommendation, who, in turn, endorsed the
case to the Provincial Fiscal of Samar.

The Provincial Fiscal, after hearing the parties, submitted his Report,^[6]
stating among others, that “In the face of these contradictory versions
as to the real contract respecting the sharing of the amount of P903.33
between the two parties this investigator is inclined to believe that
the version of Atty. Cardona is more credible considering the fact that
these two alleged versions are all verbal and further considering the
credibility of the witness who testified in this investigation,” and,
therefore, no merit in the charge that the respondent has
misappropriated funds belonging to his client. Nevertheless, the
Solicitor General filed a complaint against the respondent, recommending
his suspension from the practice of law for 2 years,^[7]
for the reason that there is sincerity in the testimony of the
complainant and the respondent is guilty of the charge against him.^[8]

The respondent filed his answer thereto, reiterating his claim
that the agreement between them is that the complainant shall receive
1/3 of whatever money may be collected, less 10% of the amount as
expenses for collecting the same, which has already been fully
satisfied.^[9] In further
support of his claim, he submitted an affidavit, executed by the
complainant, to the effect that complainant is satisfied with the
findings of the Provincial Fiscal and no longer interested in the
prosecution of the case.^[10]

As will be seen, the determination of the issue of misconduct is
dependent upon the sharing agreement entered into by and between the
parties. Both claim that each one is entitled to 2/3 of the money
collected. The evidence presented by them, however, is not conclusive
since their agreement was not put in writing. But, in view of the
affidavit of the complainant, as well as of the findings of the
Provincial Fiscal of Samar, who personally heard the parties and their
witnesses, that the testimony of the witnesses for the respondent are
more credible, it can be rationally inferred that the complainant had
consented to give 2/3 of the money to the respondent as his professional
fees. The respondent is, therefore, not guilty of misconduct.

WHEREFORE, the complaint should be, as it is hereby, DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo, Aquino, and Santos, JJ., concur.

Antonio, J., took no part.

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 22.

^[2] Id., p. 24.

^[3] Id., p. 25.

^[4] Id., p. 4.

^[5] Id., p. 6.

^[6] Id., p. 7.

^[7] Id., p. 26.

^[8] Id., pp. 29, 34.

^[9] Id., p. 108.

^[10] Id., p. 116.