Concepcion Cabigao and Luis Yzquierdo v. Jose Fernando Rodrigo
In Re: Jose Fernando Rodrigo
August 9, 1932
57 Phil 20
FACTS:
On March 6, 1931, Concepcion Cabigao and Luis Yzquierdo filed charges for
malpractice against Attorney Jose Fernando Rodrigo. By resolution of March 9, 1931, the
court referred the matter to the Attorney-General for investigation, report and
recommendation. After careful consideration of the whole evidence presented at the hearings
the Attorney-General found the following facts satisfactorily:
"That the complainants were defendants in case No. 3590 of the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan; that the respondent was one of their counsel; that sometime
between May and July, 1930, the respondent advised the complainants to settle the
case for P2,500, and that during the same period, the respondent had been to the house
of Eugenio Lim Pineda, plaintiff in said case No. 3590, with offers of settlement; that
after securing the assent of said Eugenio Lim Pineda to a settlement of the case for the
amount of P2,500, the respondent obtained from the complainants a check for the
amount of P3,900, P2,500 of which, he represented as the sum to be paid to Eugenio
Lim Pineda in full settlement of the case and the P1,400 to be paid to himself for his
professional services; that the respondent also represented to the complainants that the
payment of said amount would terminate the case and that Pineda would subscribe to
a motion for dismissal; that after obtaining from the complainants the said check, the
respondent kept the funds and failed to settle the case; that the complainants relying
upon the representations of the respondent believed that the case would be settled and
were unprepared for the trial which took place sometime after the respondent has
assured them that they had ’nothing to worry about’; that by reason of the
respondent’s representations and conduct, the complainants were forced to a
settlement in open court, by the terms of which, they were sentenced to pay the
amount of P3,500 to Eugenio Lim Pineda; that in order to satisfy the judgment the
complainants demanded of the respondent, the return of the amount of P2,500; that to
compel the respondent to make such return the complainants had to appeal to the
fiscal of the City of Manila; that by reason of the respondent’s conduct the
complainants suffered considerable damages."
The facts above quoted are undeniable and do not leave room for any doubt. It has
been clearly proven by Exhibit A, the authenticity of which is admitted by respondent, that he
received the check No. 1568738-D of the Philippine National Bank in the amount of P3,900
to be applied as follows: P2,500 to be paid to Eugenio Lim Pineda as the agreed price of the
amicable settlement between him and the complainants in civil case No. 3590 of the court of
First Instance of Bulacan, and P1,400 to be paid to the respondent as attorney’s fees. The
whole amount of P3,900 was misappropriated by the respondent notwithstanding the fact that
he never carried out the alleged amicable settlement of the case and the repeated demands
made by the complainants for the return of the money.
ISSUE:
Whether respondent lawyer is guilty of misappropriating his clients’ monies.
RULING:
YES. We have here a clear case of misappropriation by an attorney of funds entrusted
to him by his clients to be applied to the settlement of a civil case in which he acted as a
lawyer. It also clearly appears that these facts constitute malpractice for which the respondent
is accountable.
The contention of the respondent that he had the right to retain the money intended to
be paid to Eugenio Lim Pineda for the protection of certain bondsmen secured by him in
favor of the complainants and that at any rate he was entitled to use all the money because the
complainants were indebted to him in a larger amount as attorney’s fees, is untenable and
without merit. He admitted having received the total sum of money for the specific purpose
recited in the receipt signed by him, and we fail to conceive any sound reason by which he
should be allowed to misapply said money entrusted to him. To permit this would amount to
sanctioning a flagrant violation of his obligations as an attorney to his clients and to the
public, aside from the criminal aspect which the case might have.
In view of the foregoing we are of the opinion that Attorney Jose Fernando Rodrigo
should be, as he is hereby, suspended from his profession indefinitely 1 and until he refunds
the sum of P3,900 to the complainants and let this matter be again referred to the AttorneyGeneral for appropriate action, result thereof to be reported to this court for further
proceeding. So ordered.