Penticostes Vs Ibanez Digest

Penticostes vs. Ibaez [A.C. CBD No.
167; March 9, 1999]

Facts:
In 1989, Encarnacion Pascual, sister-in-law of Atty. Prudencio S. Penticostes (complainant) was sued for non-remittance of SSS payments. The complaint was
assigned to Prosecutor Diosdado S. Ibaez (respondent) for preliminary investigation.
In the course of the investigation, Encarnacion Pascual gave P1,804.00 to respondent as payment of her SSS contribution in arrears. But respondent did not
remit the amount and the fact of non-payment was certified to by the SSS on October 2, 1989.
Over a year later, complainant filed with the Tarlac RTC a complaint for professional misconduct against Ibaez due to the latters failure to remit the SSS
contributions of his sister-in-law. It alleged that respondents misappropriation of Encarnacion Pascuals SSS contributions amounted to a violation of his oath
as a lawyer. Seven days later, or on November 23, 1990, respondent paid P1,804.00 to the SSS on behalf of Encarnacion Pascual.
In the meantime, the case was referred to the IBP-Tarlac Chapter, the court observing that it had no competence to receive evidence on the matter. Upon
receipt of the case, the Tarlac Chapter forwarded the same to IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline.
In his defense, respondent claimed that his act of accommodating Encarnacion Pascuals request to make payment to the SSS did not amount to professional
misconduct but was rather an act of Christian charity. Furthermore, he claimed that the action was moot and academic, the amount of P1,804.00 having
already been paid by him to the SSS. Lastly, he disclaimed liability on the ground that the acts complained were not done by him in his capacity as a practicing
lawyer but on account of his office as a prosecutor.
On September 3, 1998, the Commission recommended that the respondent be reprimanded, with a warning that the commission of the same or similar offense
would be dealt with more severely in the future. On November 5, 1998, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved its Commissions
recommendation.
Issue: WON Respondents non-remittance of the funds coming from Encarnacion Pascual constitutes misconduct.
Held: Yes
SC adopted IBPs recommendation and found respondent guilty of professional misconduct. While there is no doubt that payment of the contested amount had
been effected to the SSS on November 23, 1990, it is clear however, that the same was made only after a complaint had been filed against
respondent. Furthermore, the duties of a provincial prosecutor do not include receiving money from persons with official transactions with his office.
The Court has repeatedly admonished lawyers that a high sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
It is glaringly clear that respondents non-remittance for over one year of the funds coming from Encarnacion Pascual constitutes conduct in gross violation of
the above canon. The belated payment of the same to the SSS does not excuse his misconduct. While Pascual may not strictly be considered a client of
respondent, the rules relating to a lawyers handling of funds of a client is applicable.
In Daroy v. Legaspi, it was held that (t)he relation between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature...[thus] lawyers are bound to promptly account
for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. The failure of respondent to
immediately remit the amount to the SSS gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use. This is a gross violation of general
morality as well as professional ethics; it impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.
Respondents claim that he may not be held liable because he committed such acts, not in his capacity as a private lawyer, but as a prosecutor is
unavailing. Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks.
As stated by the IBP Committee that drafted the Code, a lawyer does not shed his professional obligations upon assuming public office. In fact, his public
office should make him more sensitive to his professional obligations because a lawyers disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the publics eye.
Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.
Respondent was REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a commission of the similar offense will be dealt with more severely in the future.

Penticostes Vs Ibanez Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Penticostes Vs Ibanez Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Penticostes Vs Ibanez Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Penticostes vs. Ibaez [A.C. CBD No.

167; March 9, 1999]

You might also like