Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 259 views

    Legal Ethics, Angeles V Uy

    Uploaded by

    luismisa
    1) Attorney Uy represented a private complainant in a criminal case. The defendant paid 16.5k pesos to Uy, which was intended for the private complainant. 2) However, the private complainant claimed she did not receive the money from Uy. Uy argued that his client did not accept the money, but his client manifested a willingness to accept it. 3) Uy failed to promptly report and account for the 16.5k pesos he received on behalf of his client. The Court ruled that Uy violated ethical standards by not promptly turning over money received for a client, and suspended him for one month.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Legal Ethics, Angeles V Uy

    Uploaded by

    luismisa
    259 views2 pages
    1) Attorney Uy represented a private complainant in a criminal case. The defendant paid 16.5k pesos to Uy, which was intended for the private complainant. 2) However, the private complainant claimed she did not receive the money from Uy. Uy argued that his client did not accept the money, but his client manifested a willingness to accept it. 3) Uy failed to promptly report and account for the 16.5k pesos he received on behalf of his client. The Court ruled that Uy violated ethical standards by not promptly turning over money received for a client, and suspended him for one month.

    Original Description:

    Case used for Legal Ethics, Angeles v Uy

    Original Title

    Legal Ethics, Angeles v Uy

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Attorney Uy represented a private complainant in a criminal case. The defendant paid 16.5k pesos to Uy, which was intended for the private complainant. 2) However, the private complainant claimed she did not receive the money from Uy. Uy argued that his client did not accept the money, but his client manifested a willingness to accept it. 3) Uy failed to promptly report and account for the 16.5k pesos he received on behalf of his client. The Court ruled that Uy violated ethical standards by not promptly turning over money received for a client, and suspended him for one month.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    259 views2 pages

    Legal Ethics, Angeles V Uy

    Uploaded by

    luismisa
    1) Attorney Uy represented a private complainant in a criminal case. The defendant paid 16.5k pesos to Uy, which was intended for the private complainant. 2) However, the private complainant claimed she did not receive the money from Uy. Uy argued that his client did not accept the money, but his client manifested a willingness to accept it. 3) Uy failed to promptly report and account for the 16.5k pesos he received on behalf of his client. The Court ruled that Uy violated ethical standards by not promptly turning over money received for a client, and suspended him for one month.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    K-PHREN D.

    CANDARI
    I-Viada
    Legal Ethics
    Angeles v. Uy
    A.C. No. 5019. April 6, 2000
    Facts:
    In a Criminal case, a certain Norma Trajano alleged that she paid 20k to private complainant Del
    Rosario and the balance of 16.5k was delivered to Atty. Uy, the lawyer of private complainant in
    the said case.
    Complainant Del Rosario manifested that she did not receive the 16.5k pesos that was paid to
    Atty. Uy.
    Atty. Uy however argued that his client was the one that did not accept the money since they
    wanted to receive the whole amount. But such an assertion was belied when Del Rosario
    manifested her willingness to accept the money.
    Atty. Uy alleged that the amount was safely in his office in the same building. As such,
    the proceedings were suspended in order for Uy to get the money from his office. Yet, Atty. Uy
    never returned hence the administrative case against him.
    In his comment, Atty. Uy contends that he kept the money in his office because it was the wish
    of his client. He allegedly informed them of such money and tried to give it to them but they
    insisted that he retain it in order for them to not spend it.
    The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that Atty. Uy be suspended for one month. It was
    decided that the complainants side of the story had more merit.
    Issue: WON Uy is guilty of violating Canon 16 of the CPR
    Held:
    The Court agreed with the Office of the Bar Confidant.
    The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary. It requires a high degree of
    fidelity and good faith. It is designed to remove all such temptation and to prevent everything of
    that kind from being done for the protection of the client.
    Canon 16 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of
    his client that may come into his possession.
    Furthermore, Rule 16.01 states that a lawyer shall account for all the money or property
    collected or received for or from the client.
    Respondent failed to promptly report and account for the 16.5k he had received fromTrajano on
    behalf of his client.

    If it were true that Del Rosario was informed about the payment and that she entrusted it to Atty.
    Uy, she would have known his whereabouts. That she did not know it showed falsity of the
    claim.
    In Aya v. Bigornia, the Court ruled that money collected by a lawyer in favor of his clients must
    be immediately turned over to them.
    In Daroy v. Legaspi, the Court held that 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.
    Verily, the question is not necessarily whether the rights of the clients have been prejudiced, but
    whether the lawyer has adhered to the ethical standards of the bar.
    In this light, the Court must stress that it has the duty to look into dealings between attorneys
    and their clients and to guard the latter from any undue consequences resulting from a situation
    in which they may stand unequal.
    In the present case, the records merely show that respondent did not promptly report that he
    received money on behalf of his client. There is no clear evidence of misappropriation. Under
    the circumstances, Atty. Uy should be suspended for only one month.

    You might also like