A.C. No. 5713.

June 10, 2002

(Formerly ADM. Case No. 99-634)
Dominador P. Burbe, complainant, vs. Atty. Alberto C. Magulta, respondent.

Facts:
On September 1998, Dominador P. Burbe was introduced to Atty. Alberto C. Magulta,
who agreed to legally represent him in a money claim and possible civil case against
certain parties for breach of contract. The respondent prepared the demand letter and
some other legal papers, for which services the complainant accordingly paid. The filing
fee was worth Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00).
A week later, the petitioner was informed by Atty. Magulta that the complaint had
already been filed in court and should be notified of its progress. Months passed, but
there was no notice received. Every time he inquired at the respondent’s office, he was
repeatedly told to just wait.
Burbe decided to personally verify the progress of the case and went to the Office of the
Clerk of Court. There, he was told that there was no record at all of a case by Atty.
Magulta on his behalf, copy of Certification dated May27, 1999.
The petitioner confronted Atty. Magulta. The respondent still made excuses, but then
admitted upon seeing the Certification, that he had spent the money for his own
purpose. He offered to reimburse him by issuing two checks, postdated June 1 and
June 5, 1999, in the amounts of P12,000.00 and P8,000.00 respectively.
The petitioner filed a complaint against Atty. Alberto C. Magulta for misrepresentation,
dishonesty, and oppressive conduct. The respondent denied the allegations and said
that the amount paid by Burbe was a deposit for the acceptance fee, and that he should
give the filing fee later.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Alberto C. Magulta is guilty of misappropriation of Client’s funds.

Held/ Ruling:
Yes. According to the Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 16.01, lawyers shall
hold in trust all moneys of their clients and properties that may come into their
possession.
Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of professional
ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. It may be
true that they have a lien upon the client’s funds, documents and other papers that have
lawfully come into their possession; that they may retain them until their lawful fees and
disbursements have been paid; and that they may apply such funds to the satisfaction
of such fees and disbursements. However, these considerations do not relieve them of
their duty to promptly account for the moneys they received. Their failure to do so
constitutes professional misconduct. In any event, they must still exert all effort to
protect their client’s interest within the bounds of law.
Atty. Alberto C. Magulta is found guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Adm. Case No. 3694. June 17, 1993
Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco, Achilles Bartolome, and St. Luke’s
Medical Center, complainants, vs. Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia, respondent.

Facts:
The respondent filed a complaint entitled:”Attorney Damaso B. Aves, et. al. vs. St.
Luke’s Medical Center, Drs. Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco, Jr. and Achilles
Bartolome” , presided over by Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong in the Regional Trial
Court of Valenzuela. This was for the cause of death of a patient, Fe Linda Aves, who
was then seven months pregnant and was experiencing pre-eclampsia. On July 4,
1991, ,edical records of Fe Linda Aves were produced in court as requested by Atty.
Grecia. Records were entrusted to the acting branch clerk, Avelina Robles.
In the morning of July 16, 1991, Attorney Grecia borrowed the folder containing the
medical records from Mrs. Robles. While leafing through the folder, Grecia tore off two
pages – “72” and “73”. His act was noticed by Mrs. Robles and Maria Arnet Sandico, a
clerk. Sandico followed the respondent and saw Grecia calling a man (presumably his
driver) and handed him the crumpled papers. Mrs. Robles reported this to Judge
Capulong. Sandico Pointed to the Judge the man whom Grecia had given the papers
and then brought him to the chamber. Judge Capulong also informed the plaintiff
(doctors) about the happenings and also requested them to be at the chamber. With the
presence of the doctors, Judge Capulong confronted the man. He denied at first but
then admitted and gave the torn medical records. In the ensuing excitement and
confusion of recovering the stolen exhibits, Judge Capulong belatedly realized that they
weren’t able to ascertain the identity of the man from whom they were recovered. She
directed PO3 Arnold Alabastro to investigate and ascertain the name of Grecia’s driver.
PO3 later learned that the driver’s name was “SID”, and Grecia’s housemaid and
neighbors confirmed this. Alabastro was also able to interview Grecia, but the
respondent kept denying.Unfortunately, the inquiry made by PO3 Alabastro into the
identity of the man was fruitless for he was never seen again.
On August 20, 1991, St. Luke’s filed a disbarment case against Grecia.
Grecia denied the allegations, said that he had no driver and has no knowledge of the
theft of medical records. He likewise branded the testimony of PO3 Alabastro as a
fabrication for he had never seen him before. Attorney Damaso Aves testified that it was
Atty. Castro who lifted two pages from the medical folder.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Benjamin Grecia is guilty of the theft of two pages from the medical
records of Fe Linda Aves.

Held/ Ruling:
Yes. Rules of Professional Responsibility Rule 1.01 provides that a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. Canon 7 states that a
lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
support activities of the Integrated Bar.
An incorrigible practitioner of “dirty tricks”, like Grecia would be ill-suited to discharge
the role of “an instrument to advance the ends of justice”. By descending to the level of
a common thief, respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal profession.
He has demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable
fraternity of lawyers. He has forfeited his membership on the BAR.
The Court finds Attorney Benjamin Grecia guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and
grossly unethical behavior as a lawyer. Considering that this is his second offense
against the canons of profession, the Court resolved to impose upon him once more the
supreme penalty of DISBARMENT. His license to practice law in the Philippines is
CANCELLED and the Bar Confidant is ordered to strike out his name form the Roll of
Attorneys.
No. L-28546. July 30, 1975.
Venancio Castañeda and Nicetas Henson petitioners, vs. Pastor D. Ago, Lourdes
Yu Ago and The Court of Appeals, respondents.

Facts:
In 1995, the petitioners filed a replevin suit against Pastor Ago in the Court of First
Instance of Manila to recover certain machineries (logging business). The judgment was
rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Ago to return the machineries or pay definite
sums of money. Ago appealed and on June 30, 1961, the Court affirmed the judgment.
After remand, the trial court issued on August 25, 1961 a writ of execution for the sum of
P172,923.87. Ago moved for a stay of execution but his motion was denied. Levy was
made on Ago’s house and lots advertised for auction sale in 1961. Pastor Ago moved to
stop the auction sale but the properties were sold at auction in 1963 to Castañeda and
Henson. Ago had thrice attempted to obtain a preliminary injunction execution to
restrain the sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution. The sheriff executed the deed of
final sale on April 17, 1964 when Pastor failed to redeem. However, on May 2, 1964,
Pastor Ago, now joined by his wife, Lourdes Yu Ago, as his co-plaintiff, filed a complaint
in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City to annul the sheriif’s sale on the ground
that Pastor Ago upon which judgment was rendered against him in the replevin suit was
his personal obligation and that Lourdes Yu Ago’s one-half share in their conjugal
residential house and lots which were levied and sold upon could not legally be reached
for the satisfaction of the judgment. Pastor impliedly admitted that the conjugal
properties could be levied upon by his pleas to “save his family house and lot” in his
efforts to prevent execution. The Ago spouses repaired once more to the Court of
Appeals where they filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction. The said court gave due course to the petition and granted preliminary
injunction.
The petitioners were long denied of their victory in the replevin suit due to the
respondents Agos, abetted by their lawyer, Jose M. Luison, have misused legal
remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment,
to the extended prejudice of the practitioners. The respondents, with the assistance of
counsel, maneuvered for fourteen years to doggedly resist execution of the judgment
thru manifold tactics in and from one court to another (5 times in the Supreme Court).

Castañeda and Henson filed a petition for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals.

Issue:
Whether or not Lourdes Yu Ago’s inchoate share in the conjugal property is leviable.

Held/Ruling:
No. This was because Lourdes Yu Ago was not a party to the logging business and not
a party to the replevin suit. The spouses Ago had every opportunity to raise the issue in
the various proceedings but did not; laches now effectively bars them from raising it.
Laches, in a general sense, is a failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained
length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been
done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or
declined to assert it.
The respondents’ lawyer on the other hand, failed his duty to advise client, ordinarily a
layman, to the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on merit or lack of merit of case. If a
lawyer finds that his client’s cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise
the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer
must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and uphold the cause of justice is
superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable.
Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted position as an
officer of the court, counsel has allowed himself to become an instigator of controversy
and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator for concord and a conciliator for
compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true
exponent of the primacy of truth and moral justice.
The decision of the Court of Appeals under review is set aside. Civil case Q-7986 of the
Court of First Instance of Rizal is ordered dimissed. The treble costs are assessed
against the spouses Pastor Ago and Lourdes Yu Ago, which shall be paid by their
lawyer, Atty. Jose M. Luison.