3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Adrimisin vs. Javier

*
A.C. No. 2591. September 8, 2006.

LETICIA ADRIMISIN, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROLANDO

S. JAVIER, respondent.

Legal Ethics; Attorneys; The Code of Professional

Responsibility mandates every lawyer to hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his possession.—
The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 16 and
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (“Code”). The
Code mandates every lawyer to hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession.
Consequently, a lawyer should account for the money received
from a client. The Code also enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

Same; Same; Lawyering is not a business—it is a profession in

which duty to public service, not money, is the primary considera-
tion.—Respondent himself admitted the receipt of P500 from com-
plainant as payment for the bail bond as shown in his testimony
and in Exhibit “A.” By his receipt of the amount, respondent
agreed to take up complainant’s cause and owed fidelity to
complainant and her cause, even if complainant never paid any
fee. Lawyering is not a business. It is a profession in which duty
to public service, not money, is the primary consideration.

_______________

* EN BANC.

193

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 8, 2006 193

Adrimisin vs. Javier

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fe9c9fa4fe3bb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

Same; Same; Negligence; Respondent lawyer, in failing to

immediately secure a bail bond, clearly neglected to exercise
ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill
required by the circumstances.—Respondent claims that on 12
July 1983, he called up Alberto for the issuance of the bail bond
but it took 8 days before the bail bond was prepared. In failing to
immediately secure the bail bond, respondent clearly neglected to
exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and
skill required by the circumstances.

Same; Same; Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific

purpose but not used as intended must immediately be returned to
the client on demand; A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand
the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in
violation of the trust reposed in him by his client.—Complainant
demanded for the return of the P500 but respondent kept on
insisting that complainant seek refund from Alberto. Respondent
has the duty to account for the money entrusted to him by
complainant. In Pariñas v. Paguinto, 434 SCRA 179 (2004), we
held that “a lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected from the client. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a
specific purpose, such as for filing fee, but not used for failure to
file the case must immediately be returned to the client on
demand.” In the present case, money for the payment of the
bond’s premium was not used for the purpose intended. Hence,
respondent must return the amount to complainant upon
demand. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held
by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he
has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust
reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of
general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs
public confidence in the legal profession and deserves
punishment.

Same; Same; 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.—We reiterate
this reminder. 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. Those who
are guilty of such infraction may be disbarred or suspended from
the practice of law.

194

194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fe9c9fa4fe3bb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

Adrimisin vs. Javier

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

On 12 September 1983, Leticia

1
Adrimisin (“complainant”)
filed a complaint-affidavit with the Ministry of Justice
seeking the disbarment of Atty. Rolando S. Javier
(“respondent”) for deceit and misrepresentation.

The Facts

Complainant alleges that on 12 July 1983, she was

introduced by her cousin, Pablo Adrimisin, to respondent.
She needed the help of a lawyer in having her son-in-law,
Alfredo Monterde (“Monterde”), who was charged with the
crime of qualified theft, released from the Caloocan City
Jail. Complainant claims that respondent advised her to
file a bail bond. Complainant informed respondent that her
only money was P500. Complainant contends 2 that
respondent received the money, issued a receipt and
promised that Monterde would be released from jail the
following day.
Complainant also alleges that respondent failed to keep
his promise in having Monterde released. Complainant
went to respondent’s office several times but it seemed that
respondent was avoiding her. Monterde was later released
upon settlement of the case with his employer.
Complainant claims that she demanded for the return of
the P500 but respondent failed to return this amount.

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 3-4.

2 Rollo, p. 5 and Exhibit “A,” exhibits for complainant and respondent,
p. 1.

195

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 8, 2006 195

Adrimisin vs. Javier
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fe9c9fa4fe3bb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

Respondent did not file any comment or answer. He only

appeared in the investigative hearings conducted by the
Office of the Solicitor General (“OSG”). Respondent, in his
testimony, claims he was not hired by complainant as legal
counsel. Respondent alleges3
complainant only asked his
help to secure a bail bond. Respondent admits he received
P500 for the bail bond and 4 called up Carlos Alberto
(“Alberto”), an insurance agent. Respondent claims he gave
the P500 to Alberto. However, 5
the amount was not
sufficient to pay for the bond. Respondent denies that he6
promised to have Monterde released immediately.
Respondent claims he advised 7
complainant to get back her
money directly from Alberto. Alberto, the insurance agent,
was presented during the hearing. He testified that on 20
July 1983, respondent
8
came to him to secure a bail bond for
qualified theft. Alberto showed a copy of the personal bail
bond dated 20 July 1983, issued by Philippine Phoenix
Surety & Insurance, Inc. (“Philippine Phoenix Surety”)
with a premium of P940 and costs of documentary stamps,9
notarial fees and clearances at P279 for a total of P1,219.
Alberto claimed he issued a genuine bond but it was not
filed in 10 court because complainant failed to pay the
balance. He also testified that Pablo Adrimisin asked for
the refund of the P500 but the amount could not be
refunded due to expenses already incurred 11
and forfeiture of
the remainder in favor of Alberto’s office.
The bail bond which was marked as Exhibit “1”
contained a stamped “Limitation of Liability” clause. The
clause states

_______________

3 TSN, 8 April 1985, p. 11.

4 Id., at pp. 12-13.
5 Id., at p. 25.
6 Id., at pp. 28-29.
7 Id., at p. 34.
8 TSN, 15 August 1985, p. 25.
9 Id., at pp. 10-13.
10 Id., at p. 16.
11 Id., at p. 29.

196

196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Adrimisin vs. Javier

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fe9c9fa4fe3bb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

“Authorized limit of the bond shall not exceed12 P20,000 and

it is not valid for theft and robbery cases.” The portion
“Not valid for theft and robbery cases” was deleted with a
marking pen but this cancellation was not signed or
initialed. Alberto was asked why the cancellation was
unsigned. Alberto replied that he had13no knowledge on who
made the stamp or the cancellation. When asked if it is
the policy of Philippine Phoenix Surety not to post personal
bail bond with respect to theft 14
and robbery cases, Alberto
answered in the affirmative.
Alberto also clarified that he is not connected with
Philippine Phoenix Surety but he is an employee of the 15
House of Bonds, which is the general agent of the former.
Mr. Alfredo Brigoli (“Brigoli”), General Manager of the
House of Bonds, was also presented as one of respondent’s
witnesses. Brigoli explained 16
that he gives Alberto 5 sets of
pre-signed bail bond forms. However, in theft, robbery and
drug cases, Alberto is required to seek his approval before
the bond is issued.
Brigoli testified that it was Alberto’s daughter who
called17 him up for approval to issue a bond for qualified
theft. He informed Alberto’s daughter to bring the original
bond and its duplicate copies to his office in18
Intramuros for
his signature, but the same was not done. Due to the lack
of his signature,
19
Brigoli claimed that the bond has not been
approved. Brigoli also testified that since the bond was
not forwarded to his office, the same was not recorded and
the payment was not remitted.

_______________

12 Exhibit “1,” exhibits for complainant and respondent, p. 7.

13 TSN, supra note 8, at pp. 46-47.
14 Id., at p. 48.
15 Id., at pp. 41-43.
16 TSN, 30 September 1985, pp. 7-8.
17 Id., at p. 10.
18 Id.
19 Id., at p. 20.

197

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 8, 2006 197

Adrimisin vs. Javier

The OSG’s Report and Recommendation

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fe9c9fa4fe3bb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

The OSG’s Investigating Solicitor Antonio G. Castro heard

the case and submitted a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”). The OSG recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for not less than one
year. The Report reads:

“The charge of deceit and misrepresentation against respondent

has been sufficiently established. Respondent himself admits that
he received from complainant the sum of P500.00 for the bail bond
of complainant’s son-in-law Alfredo Monterde; that he failed to
secure Monterde’s release from jail; and that he did not return the
sum of P500.00 to complainant (pp. 9-20, tsn, March 14, 1985).
xxxx
Respondent’s defense that he actually secured a bail bond for
Monterde is a mere afterthought. Firstly, complainant confided to
him that she had no more money except P500.00. He would not,
therefore, secure a bail bond with higher premium than P500.00.
Secondly, while he declared that the records of Monterde’s case
in the Regional Trial Court in Caloocan City, Branch XXV, sala of
Judge Oscar Herrera showed that the recommended bail was
P8,000.00 (pp. 8-9, tsn, March 14, 1985), the personal bail bond,
marked as Exhibit “1,” which was allegedly prepared, was for
P9,400.00 (Exh. “1,” p. 7, Folder of Exhs.).
Thirdly, respondent’s witness, Alfredo Brigoli, the general
manager of the AAF House of Bonds, admitted that Exhibit “1”
was not finally approved. On cross-examination, he declared:

“Q Have you signed that as finally approved?

A No, sir. When they called up asking for my signature
on the deleted portion of the bond, Mr. Alberto never
came to my office.
Q In other words that bond has not been finally
approved.
A Not finally approved because there is no signature yet.”
(p. 20, tsn, Sept. 30, 1985).

As held by this Honorable Court in Royong v. Oblena, 7

SCRA 859, 868-869 (1963), “The respondent’s misconduct,
although unre-

198

198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Adrimisin vs. Javier

lated to his office, may constitute sufficient grounds for

disbarment.” And in Quingwa v. Puno, 19 SCRA 439, 445
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fe9c9fa4fe3bb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

(1967), it also held that, “Indeed, it is important that

members of this ancient and learned profession of law must
conform themselves in accordance with the highest
standards of morality.”
Specifically, for deceit and misrepresentation,
respondent may be suspended
20
or disbarred (In re Paraiso,
41 Phil. 24, 25 [1920]).”

The Court’s Ruling

The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 16

and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(“Code”). The Code mandates every lawyer to hold in trust
all moneys and21 properties of his client that may come into
his possession. Consequently, a lawyer
22
should account for
the money received from a client. The Code also enjoins 23
a
lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.
Respondent himself admitted the receipt of P500 from
complainant as payment for the bail bond as shown in his
testimony and in Exhibit “A.” By his receipt of the amount,
respondent agreed to take up complainant’s cause and
owed fidelity to complainant and her cause, even if
complainant never paid any fee. Lawyering is not a
business. It is a profession in which duty 24
to public service,
not money, is the primary consideration.
Respondent claims that on 12 July 1983, he called up
Alberto for the issuance of the bail bond but it took 8 days
before the bail bond was prepared. In failing to
immediately secure the bail bond, respondent clearly
neglected to exercise

_______________

20 Rollo, pp. 21-25.

21 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 16.
22 Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 16.01.
23 Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 18.03.
24 Burbe v. Magulta, 432 Phil. 840, 850; 383 SCRA 276, 285 (2002).

199

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 8, 2006 199

Adrimisin vs. Javier

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fe9c9fa4fe3bb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and

skill required by the circumstances.
There were also irregularities in the personal bail bond.
Firstly, it was issued on 20 July 1983 but notarized
sometime in 1984 as seen in the Notarial Certificate. The
Court therefore agrees with OSG’s finding that
respondent’s defense that he secured a bail bond was a
mere afterthought. Furthermore, complainant filed her
complaint on 12 September 1983, which means that the
bond was notarized only after the complaint was filed.
Secondly, the bail bond was not valid for theft and robbery
cases. Although there was a cancellation of such phrase
through marking pen, the same was not countersigned, and
hence the cancellation was void. Thirdly, the payment for
the bond was not recorded and neither was it remitted to
the issuer of the bond. This means that the bond was a
mere piece of paper without any value for it failed to serve
its purpose.
Complainant demanded for the return of the P500 but
respondent kept on insisting that complainant seek refund
from Alberto. Respondent has the duty to account for the
money entrusted
25
to him by complainant. In Pariñas v.
Paguinto, we held that “a lawyer shall account for all
money or property collected from the client. Money
entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for
filing fee, but not used for failure to file the case must
immediately be returned to the client on demand.” In the
present case, money for the payment of the bond’s premium
was not used for the purpose intended. Hence, respondent
must return the amount to complainant upon demand.
A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held
by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption
that he has appropriated the same for his own use in
violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act
is a gross violation of general morality as well as of
professional ethics.

_______________

25 A.C. No. 6297, 13 July 2004, 434 SCRA 179, 183.

200

200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Adrimisin vs. Javier

It impairs public confidence

26
in the legal profession and
deserves punishment.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fe9c9fa4fe3bb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

This is not the first time respondent is found to have

unlawfully 27withheld and misappropriated money. In Igual
v. Javier, the Court held that respondent had
unjustifiably refused to return Igual’s money upon demand
and his absence of integrity was highlighted by his “half-
baked excuses, hoary pretenses and blatant lies in his
testimony before the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline.”
The Court suspended Javier from the practice of law for a
period of one month and ordered him to restitute the
amount of P7,000 to Igual. In that case, we reminded
respondent that he was “expected to always live up to the
standards embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility for the relationship between an attorney and
his client is highly fiduciary
28
in nature and demands utmost
fidelity and good faith.”
We reiterate this reminder. Lawyers who convert the
funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of
professional ethics and are guilty 29
of betrayal of public
confidence in the legal profession. Those who are guilty of
such infraction30 may be disbarred or suspended from the
practice of law.
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Rolando S. Javier
from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS effective upon
finality of this Decision. We ORDER respondent to
restitute complainant Leticia Adrimisin the Five Hundred
Pesos (P500) with legal interest computed from 12
September 1983 until full payment. Respondent shall
submit to the Court proof of restitution within ten (10) days
from payment.

_______________

26 R. AGPALO, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 242 (2002 ed.)

27 324 Phil. 698, 709; 254 SCRA 416, 423-424 (1996).
28 Id.
29 Sipin-Nabor v. Baterina, 412 Phil. 419, 424; 360 SCRA 6, 10 (2001).
30 Espiritu v. Ulep, A.C. No. 5808, 4 May 2005, 458 SCRA 1, 9.

201

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 8, 2006 201

Adrimisin vs. Javier

Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Office of the

Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent’s personal
record, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The
Court Administrator shall furnish copies to all courts of the
land for their information and guidance.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fe9c9fa4fe3bb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

SO ORDERED.

          Panganiban (C.J.), Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-

Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Corona,
Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario,
Garcia and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

Atty. Rolando S. Javier suspended from practice of law

for six (6) months.

Notes.—While it is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged

to act either as adviser or advocate for every person who
may wish to become his client, once he agrees to take up
the cause of the client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. (Abaqueta vs. Florido, 395
SCRA 569 [2003])
When the opinion of counsel is at variance with that of
the judge, the former cannot use it as an excuse to hurl
imputations of unfairness and partiality in the absence of
clear and convincing proof. (Cea vs. Paguio, 397 SCRA 494
[2003])
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an
attorneyclient relationship and gives rise to the duty of
fidelity to the client’s cause. (Fernandez vs. Cabrera II, 418
SCRA 1 [2003])

——o0o——

202

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fe9c9fa4fe3bb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10