3Repuhlic of tbe ~bilippines

$>Upreme QI:ourt
;.fflanila

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a

Resolution dated December 2, 2021 which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 8735 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3025] (Agnes P.

De Lara v. Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri). - This resolves the disbarment
complaint 1 filed by Agnes P. De Lara (De Lara) against Atty. Rolando
V. Zubiri (Atty. Zubiri).

De Lara alleged that sometime in 1997, she obtained a

P930,000.00 loan from Quedancor secured by several mortgages, one
of which was Artemio Catalo's (Catalo) real property. When De Lara
learned that Catalo's mortgaged property may be released if she pays
Quedancor P500,000.00, she sought the legal services of Atty. Zubiri.
De Lara was in the United States during that time, so she asked Pilar
Gaspi to purchase a Manager's Check in the amount of P500,000.00
and give the check to Atty. Zubiri. De Lara claimed that Atty. Zubiri
encashed the check. However, when Catalo went to see Atty. Zubiri to
secure the P500,000.00, Atty. Zubiri refused to give the money. De
Lara alleged that Atty. Zubiri promised on different dates to deliver
the money, but eventually, he refused to give them any amount. De
Lara was then constrained to write a demand letter to Atty. Zubiri to
recover the P500,000.00. Atty. Zubiri ignored the letter. Thus, on
September 13, 2010, she filed a disbarment complaint against Atty.
Zubiri. 2

In his answer, Atty. Zubiri stated that in 2004, De Lara

consulted him on the possible foreclosure of properties mortgaged to
Quedancor.3 De Lara gave him P20,000.00 and committed to send

- over - seven (7) pages ...

131-A

1
Rollo, pp. 1- 2.
2 Id.
3
Id. at 25.
RESOLUTION 2 A.C. No. 8735
December 2, 2021

more money for professional fees, transportation, and other incidental

expenses. Atty. Zubiri admitted to receiving PS00,000.00 from De
Lara but asserted that the money was for just and reasonable
compensation for his services and reimbursement of expenses he
incurred relative to the foreclosure case and payment of his
professional fees. He did not receive it in trust for Catala. He averred
that he spent P20,000.00 each time he would travel to Quedancor's
office in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, which could only be reached
by plane or by 18 hours of travel by land from Manila. He went to San
Jose at least ten (10) times to advocate for the postponement of the
foreclosure. Atty. Zubiri added that it was because of him that
Quedancor did not foreclose the mortgage.

On June 28, 2013, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of

the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended to suspend
Atty. Zubiri from the practice of law for six (6) months for violating
Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR).4 The IBP-CBD noted that there was no written contract for
professional services between the parties, but still, there should be
proper accounting of the money that Atty. Zubiri received. 5 This is to
determine whether Atty. Zubiri has charged only fair and reasonable
fees because the facts do not show how much went to transportation
and hotel expenses and how much was retained for professional fees. 6

On December 14, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors adopted

the IBP-CBD's factual findings and recommendations, viz.:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby

ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein
made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the
recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record
and applicable laws, and for violation of Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months. 7 (Emphasis and italics in original.)

Atty. Zubiri moved for reconsideration, but the IBP Board of

Governors denied it on May 28, 2016 because no new reason or
argument was adduced to reverse the previous findings and decision
of the Board. 8

- over -
131-A

4
Id. at 74-78.
5
Id. at 77.
6
Id. at 77.
7 Id.at73.
8 Id. at 80.
RESOLUTION 3 A.C. No. 8735
December 2, 2021

RULING

We sustain the findings of the IBP that Atty. Zubiri committed

professional negligence under Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the CPR, with
a modification that we also find him guilty of violating Rule 16.03, to
wit:

RULE 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property

collected or received for or from the client.

RULE 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his
client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien
over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary
to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice
promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the
same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his
client as provided for in the Rules of Court.

Records disclose that De Lara gave Atty. Zubiri P500,000.00.

Atty. Zubiri did not deny receiving the money but insisted it was for
reimbursement of expenses and legal fees. However, Atty. Zubiri did
not render an accounting of the funds entrusted to him. He merely
reasoned that he was able to conduct a successful negotiation with
Quedancor on the foreclosed property. He also ignored De Lara's
demand letter. Suffice it to state that although Rule 16.03 affords the
lawyer the right to have a lien over the funds and apply so much as
necessary for legal fees and disbursements, the CPR also requires that
the lawyer must promptly notify his client and render an accounting. 9
In Garcia v. Manuel, to the Court held that "[t]he highly fiduciary and
confidential relation of attorney and client requires that the lawyer
should promptly account for all the funds received from, or held by
him for, the client." Therefore, an attorney's lien does not relieve a
lawyer of his duty to account for the money received and to inform his
client if any amount was applied to satisfy fees and disbursements. 11

Furthermore, the acceptance of money from a client establishes

an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to
the client's cause. 12 In Palencia v. Linsangan, 13 we held that:

The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly

fiduciary. This relationship holds a lawyer to a great degree of
fidelity and good faith especially in handling money or property of

- over -
131-A

9 See Rayos v. Hernandez, 544 Phil. 447-468 (2007); Garcia v. Manuel (Resolution), 443 Phil.
479-489 (2003).
10 Garcia v. Manuel (Resolution), 443 Phil. 479-489 (2003)
11 Supra. See also Lemoine v. Balon, Jr., 460 Phil. 702- 716 (2003).
12 Francia v. Sagario, A.C. No. I 0938, October 8, 20 19.
13 836 Phil. I (2018).
 RESOLUTION 4 A.C. No. 8735
December 2, 2021

his clients. Thus, Canon 16 and its rules remind a lawyer to: (1)
hold in tmst all moneys and properties of his client that may come
into his possession; (2) deliver the funds and property of his client
when due or upon demand subject to his retaining lien; and (3)
account for all money or property collected or received for or from
his client.

xxxx

It is the lawyer's duty to give a prompt and accurate

account to his client. Upon the collection or receipt of property or
funds for the benefit of the client, his duty is to notify the client
promptly and, absent a contrary understanding, pay or remit the
same to· the client, less only proper fees and disbursements, as soon
as reasonably possible. He is under absolute duty to give his client
a full, detailed, and accurate account of all money and property
which has been received and handled by him, and must justify all
transactions and dealings concerning them. And while he is in
possession of the client's funds, he should not commingle it with
his private property or use it for his personal purposes without his
client's consent.

Unfortunately, Atty. Zubiri failed to perform his duties under

Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR which warrants his
administrative liability.

In addition, we find Atty. Zubiri guilty of violating Canon 17 14

of the CPR. De Lara hired Atty. Zubiri to assist him in the possible
release of Catalo's property from the mortgage. However, instead of
delivering the P500,000.00 funds to Catalo for payment to Quedancor,
Atty. Zubiri applied the money as payment for his legal fees and
disbursements for the trips he made relative to the foreclosure. Yet,
De Lara did not authorize Atty. Zubiri to handle the foreclosure but
only to receive the money in trust for Catalo so that Catalo's
mortgaged property will be released. Atty. Zubiri disregarded his duty
of fidelity and loyalty to his client De Lara.

Penalty

In De Mesa v. Olaybal15 and Manalang v. Angeles, 16 the Court

had imposed the penalty of six ( 6) months against the erring lawyer
for violating Canons 16 and 17 of CPR. In Garcia v. Manuel, 17 the

- over -
131-A

14 CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him.
15
824 Phil. 825 (2018).
16
447 Phil. 1- 11 (2003).
17
443 Phil 479-489 (2003).
RESOLUTION 5 A.C. No. 8735
December 2, 2021

Court suspended a lawyer for six (6) months for violating Rule 16.01
and Rule 16.03 when he received the amount of Pl0,000.00 as filing
fees for an ejectment case but did not file the case. The lawyer failed
to account for the amount received and was unable to return the
amount despite repeated demands. In Chua v. Jimenez, 18 the Court
suspended the lawyer for six (6) months for violating Rules 16.01 and
16.03. The lawyer received money from the complainant but withheld
the filing of cases because the complainant had not yet settled his
obligation with his law office. He applied the amount received to
his and his law office's professional fees instead of using them as
filing fees . He also kept his client in the dark and misled him for
seven (7) years. In these cases, however, there was no prev10us
infraction committed by the respondent lawyers.

Incidentally, Atty. Zubiri has already been subjected to an

administrative sanction in Festin v. Zubiri 19 where he was suspended
from the practice of law for three (3) months for violating Canon 1,20
Canon 8, 2 1 and Rule 10.03,22 Canon 10 of the CPR. Thus, the Court
deems that a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one
( 1) year is sufficient and commensurate with his infractions.

Lastly, the Court orders the return of the amount of

PS00,000.00, which Atty. Zubiri received from De Lara. Although
disciplinary proceedings must be limited only around the
determination of the erring lawyer's administrative liability and not
his civil liability, this rule is applicable only when the claimed
liabilities are purely civil in nature, such as when the claim involves
amounts received from the client in a transaction separate and distinct,
and not intrinsically linked, to his professional engagement. 23 Here,
the money given by De Lara and received by Atty. Zubiri was in
connection with the professional engagement of Atty. Zubiri as
counsel. It would be unfair and inequitable for the Court to be silent
about a lawyer's legal obligation to restitute a complainant. No victim
of gross ethical misconduct concerning a client's funds or property

- over -
131-A

18 801 Phil 1- 13 (2016).

19 811 Phil. 1- 12 (2017).
2° CANON I - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes.
21 CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
22 RULE I 0.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
23 Minas v. Doctor, Jr. , A.C. No. 12660 (Resolution), January 28, 2020.
RESOLUTION 6 A.C. No. 8735
December 2, 2021

should be required to still litigate in another proceeding what the

administrative proceeding has already established as the lawyer' s
liability. 24 Thus, it is proper that the PS00,000.00 be returned to De
Lara, with 6% legal interest per annum from the date of receipt of this
Resolution until full payment. 25

FOR THESE REASONS, Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri is

SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of law for violating
Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16 and Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, effective upon the receipt of this
Resolution. Atty. Zubiri is ORDERED to RETURN to the
complainant Agnes P. De Lara the amount of PS00,000.00.00, with
legal interest of 6% per annum from receipt of this Resolution until
full payment.

Atty. Zubiri is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of

this Resolution to enable this Court to determine when his suspension
shall take effect.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to: (1) the Office of

the Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty. Zubiri' s personal records as
an attorney; (2) the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its
information and guidance; and (3) the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO

Deputy Division Clerk of Court
131-A

- over -

24
Bayon/av. Reyes, 676 Phil. 500- 517 (2011).
25 See Caballero v. Pilapil, A.C. No. 7075, January 2 1, 2020; San Gabriel v. Sempio, A.C. No.
12423, March 26, 2019.
RESOLUTION 7 A.C. No. 8735
December 2, 2021

Ms. Agnes P. De Lara Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri

Complainant Respondent
Quezon Street, Poblacion, Magsaysay #24-E, Visayas Avenue
5101 Occidental Mindoro Project 6, 1100 Quezon City

NACINO VENIDA LAW OFFICE Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Counsel for Complainant 1605 Pasig City
Room 404, Metroview Building
Pres. Quirino A venue cor. San Antonio Office of the Bar Confidant (x)
Street, Malate, 1004 Manila Supreme Court

Office of the Court Administrator (x)

Supreme Court

Public Information Office (x)

Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M.
No. 12-7-1-SC)

Philippine Judicial Academy (x)

Supreme Court

131-A

UR