FIRST DIVISION

LUZVIMINDA C. LIJAUCO, A.C. No. 6317

Complainant,
Present:
Panganiban, C.J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Ynares-Santiago,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
ATTY. ROGELIO P. TERRADO,
Respondent. Promulgated:
August 31, 2006
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
On February 13, 2004, an administrative complaint[1] was filed by
complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco against respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado
for gross misconduct, malpractice and conduct unbecoming of an officer of the
court when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him despite receipt of payment
representing attorneys fees.
According to the complainant, she engaged the services of respondent
sometime in January 2001 for P70,000.00 to assist in recovering her deposit with
Planters Development Bank, Buendia, Makati branch in the amount of
P180,000.00 and the release of her foreclosed house and lot located in Calamba,
Laguna. The property identified as Lot No. 408-C-2 and registered as TCT No. T402119 in the name of said bank is the subject of a petition for the issuance of a
writ of possession then pending before the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna,
Branch 24 docketed as LRC Case No. B-2610.

Complainant alleged that respondent failed to appear before the trial court in
the hearing for the issuance of the Writ of Possession and did not protect her
interests in the Compromise Agreement which she subsequently entered into to end
LRC Case No. B-2610.[2]
Respondent denied the accusations against him. He averred that the
P70,000.00 he received from complainant was payment for legal services for the
recovery of the deposit with Planters Development Bank and did not include LRC
Case No. B-2610 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bian, Laguna.
The complaint was referred[3] to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
for investigation, report and recommendation. On September 21, 2005, the
Investigating Commissioner submitted his report finding respondent guilty of
violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provide:
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Rule 9.02 A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law, except:
a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that,
upon the latters death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his
estate or to the persons specified in the agreement; or
b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a
deceased lawyer; or
c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a
retirement plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing
arrangement.

In finding the respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, the Investigating Commissioner opined that:
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant. To be made the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer, the charge
against him must be established by convincing proof. The record must disclose as

free from doubt a case which compels the exercise by the Supreme Court of its
disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done as well as of the
motivation thereof must be clearly demonstrated. x x x.
In the instant scenario, despite the strong protestation of respondent that
the Php70,000.00 legal fees is purely and solely for the recovery of the
Php180,000.00 savings account of complainant subsequent acts and events say
otherwise, to wit:
1.) The Php70,000.00 legal fees for the recovery of a Php180,000.00 savings
deposit is too high;
2.) Respondent actively acted as complainants lawyer to effectuate the
compromise agreement.
By openly admitting he divided the Php70,000.00 to other individuals as
commission/referral fees respondent violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not divide or
stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice
law. Worst, by luring complainant to participate in a compromise agreement with
a false and misleading assurance that complainant can still recover after Three (3)
years her foreclosed property respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which says a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.[4]

The Investigating Commissioner thus recommended:

WHEREFORE, finding respondent responsible for aforestated violations
to protect the public and the legal profession from his kind, it is recommended
that he be suspended for Six (6) months with a stern warning that similar acts in
the future will be severely dealt with.[5]

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of the

investigating commissioner.[6]
We agree with the findings of the IBP.
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show that they
possessed and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Indeed, lawyers
are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and
morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their
fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in

accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the
Code of Professional Responsibility.[7]
Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct[8] and are mandated to serve their clients with competence and
diligence.[9] They shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to them, and this
negligence in connection therewith shall render them liable.[10]
Respondents claim that the attorneys fee pertains only to the recovery of
complainants savings deposit from Planters Development Bank cannot be
sustained. Records show that he acted as complainants counsel in the drafting of
the compromise agreement between the latter and the bank relative to LRC Case
No. B-2610. Respondent admitted that he explained the contents of the agreement
to complainant before the latter affixed her signature. Moreover, the Investigating
Commissioner observed that the fee of P70,000.00 for legal assistance in the
recovery of the deposit amounting to P180,000.00 is unreasonable. A lawyer shall
charge only fair and reasonable fees.[11]
Respondents disregard for his clients interests is evident in the iniquitous
stipulations in the compromise agreement where the complainant conceded the
validity of the foreclosure of her property; that the redemption period has already
expired thus consolidating ownership in the bank, and that she releases her claims
against it.[12] As found by the Investigating Commissioner, complainant agreed to
these concessions because respondent misled her to believe that she could still
redeem the property after three years from the foreclosure. The duty of a lawyer to
safeguard his clients interests commences from his retainer until his discharge from
the case or the final disposition of the subject matter of litigation. Acceptance of
money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the
duty of fidelity to the clients cause. The canons of the legal profession require that
once an attorney agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with zeal,
care and utmost devotion.[13]
Respondents admission[14] that he divided the legal fees with two other
people as a referral fee does not release him from liability. A lawyer shall not
divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to
practice law, except in certain cases.[15]

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may
be disbarred or suspended on the following grounds: 1) deceit; 2) malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in office; 3) grossly immoral conduct; 4) conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude; 5) violation of the lawyers oath; 6) willful
disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court; and 7) willfully appearing as
an attorney for a party without authority.
In Santos v. Lazaro[16] and Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr.,[17] we held that Rule
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is a basic postulate in legal
ethics. When a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence in protecting his rights. The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance
and attention makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client
and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the
courts and society.
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his clients case.
Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and
care. If he fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Thus, a lawyer
should accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle in order to
sufficiently protect his clients interests. It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the
qualification to handle the legal matter; he must also give adequate attention to
his legal work. Utmost fidelity is demanded once counsel agrees to take the
cudgels for his clients cause.[18]
In view of the foregoing, we find that suspension from the practice of law
for six months is warranted. In addition, he is directed to return to complainant the
amount he received by way of legal fees pursuant to existing jurisprudence.[19]
WHEREFORE, Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found GUILTY of violating
Rules 1.01, 9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective from notice,
and STERNLY WARNED that any similar infraction will be dealt with more
severely. He is further ordered to RETURN, within thirty (30) days from notice,
the sum of P70,000.00 to complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco and to submit to this
Court proof of his compliance within three (3) days therefrom.

Let copies of this Decision be entered in the record of respondent and served
on the IBP, as well as on the Court Administrator who shall circulate it to all courts
for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice

[1]

Rollo, pp. 2-4.

Position Paper for Complainant, id. at 49.
[3]
Id. at 42.
[4]
Id. at 106-107.
[5]
Id, at 107.
[6]
Id. at 102.
[7]
Garcia v. Bala, A.C. No. 5039, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 85, 91.
[8]
Rule 1.01.
[9]
Canon 18.
[10]
Rule 18.03.
[2]

[11]

Canon 20.
Rollo, pp. 37-39.
[13]
Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Dioneda, A.C. No. 5162, March 20, 2003, 399 SCRA
296, 303.
[14]
Rollo, p. 90.
[15]
Rule 9.02.
[16]
445 Phil. 1, 5 (2003).
[17]
A.C. No. 5655, April 22, 2005, 456 SCRA 508, 514.
[18]
Abiero v. Juanino A.C. No. 5302, February 18, 2005, 452 SCRA 1, 10.
[19]
Garcia v. Bala, supra note 7 at 95-96; Ferrer v. Tebelin, A.C. No. 6590, June 27, 2005, 461 SCRA 207,
217; Macarilay v. Seria, A.C. No. 6591, May 4, 2005, 458 SCRA 12, 26; Dalisay v. Mauricio, supra at 515-516.
[12]