ATTY. RICARDO M. SALOMON, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOSELITO C. FRIAL, RESPONDENT.

Salomon versus Frial

The Case

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Atty. Ricardo M. Salomon, Jr. against Atty. Joselito C. Frial, charging the latter with violation of the Lawyer's Oath and gross misconduct. The grievance arises from Atty. Frial's handling of two motor vehicles that had been placed under a writ of preliminary attachment in a civil case, where he was counsel for the attaching plaintiff. The case matters because it fixes the standard of fidelity a lawyer owes to property in custodia legis — property in the custody of the law — and because it illustrates how the Court calibrates the penalty for grave misconduct, imposing suspension rather than the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

Procedural History

The complainant filed a sworn complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on December 22, 2006, asking that Atty. Frial be disbarred. The matter was referred to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, which conducted a mandatory conference and hearing, received the parties' position papers, and submitted a Report dated October 9, 2007. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Report and transmitted it to the Supreme Court. The Commission found that Atty. Frial committed acts bearing on his integrity as a lawyer and failed to observe the diligence required of a custodian of the cars, and recommended suspension from the practice of law for one year. The case thus reached the Supreme Court as an original administrative proceeding for discipline, not by appeal from a lower court.

Facts

In the civil case of Lucy Lo against Ricardo Salomon and others, then pending before the Regional Trial Court in Manila, a writ of preliminary attachment was issued in favor of Lucy Lo, who was Atty. Frial's client. The writ was used to attach two cars belonging to Atty. Salomon: a black 1995 Volvo and a green 1993 Nissan Sentra. Instead of depositing the attached cars in the court premises, the attaching sheriff of Manila turned them over to Atty. Frial.

Atty. Salomon alleged that the Nissan Sentra was repeatedly spotted being used by unauthorized persons — at a battery shop on Anonas Street in Quezon City, at a Shell station at P. Tuazon Boulevard corner 20th Avenue, at another Shell station near Kamias Street, and being driven by a bondsman. When the misuse was reported, Atty. Frial wrote a letter acknowledging that he had authorized the bondsman to bring the car to a mechanic. As to the Volvo, Atty. Salomon averred that Atty. Frial withheld information about its whereabouts during mediation; the Volvo had in fact been totally destroyed by fire, and the court was not immediately notified.

In his Answer, Atty. Frial admitted taking custody of the cars through his own undertaking, without authority and knowledge of the court. He claimed the vehicles were first parked near the YMCA building in front of the Manila City Hall for four months, and that when he checked them in December 2005 he found them infested and the wirings gnawed by rats. He denied personally using the cars or allowing others to use them, offering explanations for the sightings. He admitted receiving the Volvo in excellent condition, that no court order authorized its removal from the YMCA premises, that he secured its release on the strength alone of his own written undertaking, and that the car was almost totally destroyed by fire while parked at his residence. He could not explain the destruction and admitted not reporting the burning to the court or the sheriff.

Issues

• Whether or not Atty. Frial used the attached cars for his personal benefit.
• Whether or not Atty. Frial is guilty of infidelity in the custody of the attached properties.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics provides:

Dealing with trust property. The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client. Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by him.

This Canon supplies the standard of fidelity the Court applies: a lawyer must not abuse or take advantage of trust property, and must report and account for it promptly.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no direct evidence that Atty. Frial personally used the cars. But it held that the Nissan Sentra was in fact being used by other persons while in his custody, and that whoever drove it must have received the key from him. The Court noted that there was no reason to gas up the car on the occasions it was seen unless it was being used, and that photographs of the car in different places showed it was being used by others.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that Atty. Frial was guilty of infidelity in the custody of the attached cars and of grave misconduct. A writ of attachment issues to prevent the defendant from disposing of the attached property, thus securing the satisfaction of any judgment; when the attached objects are destroyed, the attachment is for naught. Atty. Frial trifled with the writ. He took custody without informing the court, let alone securing its authority; he was remiss in caring for the cars; he allowed the Nissan Sentra to be used by persons who had no business using it; and he deliberately concealed the destruction of the Volvo from the court during hearings that were the opportune times to reveal its condition.

On penalty, the Court declined to impose disbarment, holding that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and moral character of a lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar, and that it should not be decreed where a less severe punishment would accomplish the end desired. Finding no compelling evidence that Atty. Frial intended to pervert the administration of justice for a dishonest purpose, the Court held that a one-year suspension would give him time to ponder on and cleanse himself of his misconduct.

Doctrine

A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court and must respect the court's orders and processes. A lawyer who takes custody of property in custodia legis — property in the custody of the law — is duty bound to keep and preserve it in the same condition he received it, to report and account for it promptly under Canon 11, and to inform the court or the sheriff of any loss or destruction. Taking such property on the strength of his own undertaking, without the court's authority, and concealing its destruction from the court constitute grave misconduct and infidelity in the custody of attached properties. Disbarment is imposed only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the lawyer's standing and moral character, and not where a less severe penalty such as reprimand, suspension, or fine would accomplish the end desired.

Disposition

The Court adjudged Atty. Joselito C. Frial guilty of grave misconduct and infidelity in the custody of properties in custodia legis, and suspended him from the practice of law for one year effective upon his receipt of the Decision, with notice entered in his personal record with the Office of the Bar Confidant and served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator.

Remember This

A lawyer holding property in custodia legis is a trustee of the law: he must preserve it, account for it promptly, and disclose its loss to the court. Examiners use this case to test the lawyer's duty of fidelity under Canon 11 and the rule that disbarment is a last resort, reserved for clear misconduct seriously affecting the lawyer's standing and moral character.