THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 11494. July 24, 2017.]

HEIRS OF JUAN DE DIOS E. CARLOS, namely , JENNIFER N. CARLOS,

JOCELYN N. CARLOS, JACQUELINE CARLOS-DOMINGUEZ, JO-ANN
CARLOS-TABUTON, JIMMY N. CARLOS, LORNA A. CARLOS,
JERUSHA ANN A. CARLOS and JAN JOSHUA A. CARLOS ,
complainants, vs. ATTY. JAIME S. LINSANGAN , respondent.

DECISION

TIJAM , J : p

Complainants are children of the late Juan De Dios E. Carlos (Juan) who presently
seek to disbar respondent Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan (Atty. Linsangan). Atty. Linsangan
acted as counsel for their late father in several cases, one of which involving the
recovery of a parcel of land located in Alabang, Muntinlupa City. Complainants alleged
that Atty. Linsangan forced them to sign pleadings and documents, sold the parcel of
land in Alabang, Muntinlupa City in cahoots with complainants' estranged mother, and
evaded payment of income taxes when he divided his share in the subject property as
his supposed attorney's fees to his wife and children, all in violation of his oath as
lawyer. TIADCc

The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings

The parcel of land located in Alabang, Muntilupa City and covered by Transfer
Certi cate of Title (TCT) No. 139061 with an area of 12,331 square meters was
previously owned by the Spouses Felix and Felipa Carlos. Their son, Teo lo Carlos
(Teo lo), convinced them to transfer said title to his name with a promise to distribute
the same to his brothers and sisters. Teo lo delivered the owner's duplicate copy of
the title to his brother, Juan. However, Teo lo sold the entire property to Pedro
Balbanero (Pedro). Pedro, however, failed to pay the agreed installment payments.
For purposes of recovering the subject property from Teo lo (and Teo lo's
supposed wife, Felicidad), and from Pedro, Juan engaged the services of Atty.
Linsangan. It appears that Atty. Linsangan, for Juan, led the following cases: (a) a case
1 against Felicidad which was settled with the latter acknowledging Juan's one-half
interest and ownership over the property; (b) a case against Pedro which was
concluded on September 12, 1997; and (c) another case 2 against Felicidad, albeit led
by another lawyer who acted under the direct control and supervision of Atty.
Linsangan. In this case against Felicidad, it appears that the other half of the property
was adjudicated to Juan, as Teo lo's sole heir. Said adjudication was appealed to the
CA. 3
It further appears that Atty. Linsangan represented Juan in the following cases,
likewise all involving the subject property: (a) an action for partition 4 led by Bernard
Rillo against Pedro; (b) an ejectment case 5 led by Juan against Pedro; and (c) Juan's
intervention in the case 6 between Pedro and Teofilo.
It nally appears that Atty. Linsangan also represented Juan in the certiorari
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 cases and petitions for review led before the CA 7 and this Court, 8 likewise involving
the same property.
During the pendency of the above cases, or on September 22, 1997, Atty.
Linsangan and Juan executed a Contract for Professional Services 9 enumerating the
above cases being handled by Atty. Linsangan for Juan. In said Contract, Atty.
Linsangan and Juan agreed, as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREAS, the Parties have decided to consolidate their agreements in
connection with ATTORNEY's engagement as CLIENT's attorney to recover the
subject property;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises,
the parties hereto have mutually agreed and bound themselves as follows:
1. That ATTORNEY shall continue to take all legal steps to recover
the 10,000 square meters covered by TCT No. 139061, or any portion thereof
acceptable to CLIENT, through any or all of the Court cases mentioned above, or
such other Court cases as may be necessary;
2. That ATTORNEY shall not enter into any compromise agreement
without the written consent of CLIENT. CLIENT may enter into any compromise
agreement only upon consultation with ATTORNEY;
3. That ATTORNEY shall avail of all legal remedies in order to
recover the property and shall continue the prosecution of such remedies to the
best of his knowledge, ability, and experience, all within legal and ethical
bounds;
4. That CLIENT shall shoulder all necessary and incidental expenses
in connection with the said cases;
5. That considering, among others, the extent of services rendered by
ATTORNEY; the value of the property sought to be recovered; the importance of
the case to CLIENT; the di culty of recovery (considering that the Balbanero
spouses have a favorable Court of Appeals['] Decision in C.V. No. 29379, while
Felicidad Sandoval's name appears in the TCT No. 139061 as wife of the
registered owner, Teo lo Carlos), the professional ability and experience of
ATTORNEY; as well as other considerations, CLIENT hereby con rms and
rati es that he has agreed and bound himself to pay ATTORNEY a
contingent fee in an amount equivalent to FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of
the market value of the property, or portion thereof, which may be
recovered, or the zonal value thereof, whichever is higher.
The said attorney's fees shall become due and payable upon recovery of
the property, or any portion thereof, (a) upon nality of a favorable Court
decision, or (b) compromise settlement, whether judicially or extrajudicially,
through the execution of any document acknowledging or transferring CLIENT's
rights over the property, or any portion thereof, whether or not through
ATTORNEY's, CLIENT's, or other person's efforts or mediation, or (c) or by any
other mode by which CLIENT's interest on the subject property, or a portion
thereof, is recognized, or registered, or transferred to him; or (d) should CLIENT
violate this contract; or (e) should CLIENT terminate ATTORNEY's services
without legal or just cause.
6. That CLIENT undertakes and binds himself to pay the said
attorney's fees to the following:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 (a) To ATTORNEY himself;
(b) In case of ATTORNEY'S death or disability, to
LORNA OBSUNA LINSANGAN;
(c) In case of death or disability of ATTORNEY and
LORNA OBSUNA LINSANGAN, jointly and severally, to LAUREN
KYRA LINSANGAN, LORRAINE FREYJA LINSANGAN, and JAMES
LORENZ LINSANGAN;
(d) In default of all the [foregoing], to the estate of
ATTORNEY.
7. That this Contract shall be binding and enforceable upon CLIENT's
heirs, successors-in-interest, administrators, and assigns, if any.
8. That nally, CLIENT hereby authorizes, at ATTORNEY's option, the
annotation of this contract on TCT No. 139061 or any subsequent title which
may be issued. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx 1 0
However, it was not only Juan who went after the property, but also Bernard Rillo
and Alicia Carlos, a sister-in-law. The latter also led an action 1 1 for recovery of their
share and by Compromise Agreement, an area of 2,331 square meters was awarded in
their favor, leaving a 10,000 square meter portion of the property. 1 2
This remaining 10,000 square meter portion was eventually divided in the case
led by Juan against Felicidad (which Atty. Linsangan admits 1 3 to have led albeit
through another lawyer who acted under his control and supervision), through a
Compromise Agreement wherein 7,500 square meters of the subject property was
given to the heirs of Juan while the remaining 2,500 square meters thereof was given to
Felicidad. 1 4 In said Compromise Agreement, the parties likewise agreed to waive as
against each other any and all other claims which each may have against the other,
including those pending in the CA 1 5 and this Court. This Compromise Agreement was
approved by the trial court on December 11, 2009. 1 6
Subsequently, a Supplemental Compromise Agreement 1 7 dated December 16,
2009 was submitted by the heirs of Juan and Atty. Linsangan, dividing among them the
7,500 square meter-portion of the property as follows: 3,750 square meters to the
heirs of Juan and 3,750 square meters to Atty. Linsangan pursuant to the Contract for
Professional Services. In said Supplemental Compromise Agreement, Atty. Linsangan
waived in favor of his wife and children his 3,750 square meter share, except as to the
250 square meters thereof, as follows:
(a) To Mrs. Lorna O. Linsangan — 2,000 square meters;
(b) To Lauren Kyra O. Linsangan — 500 square meters;
(c) To Lorraine Freyja O. Linsangan — 500 square meters;
(d) To James Lorenz O. Linsangan — 500 square meters;
(e) To Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan — 250 square meters. 1 8
Said Supplemental Compromise Agreement was likewise approved by the trial
court in its Decision 1 9 dated December 18, 2009. There was no mention in the record,
however, that the Compromise Agreement and the Supplemental Compromise
Agreement were likewise presented for approval before the several courts where the
other cases were pending. SDAaTC

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com

 On December 10, 2015, Atty. Linsangan executed a Deed of Absolute Sale 2 0 with
a certain Helen S. Perez (Helen) covering the entire 12,331 square meters of the subject
property for a purchase price of One Hundred Fifty Million Pesos (PhP150,000,000).
Atty. Linsangan sold the entire property using the following:
1. a Special Power of Attorney 2 1 dated August 26, 2010, executed by his
wife Lorna Linsangan, and children, Lauren Kyra O. Linsangan, Lorraine Freyja
O. Linsangan and James Lorenz O. Linsangan to sell their shares in the subject
property;
2. a Special Power of Attorney 2 2 dated September 2009, executed by
Juan's wife, Bella N. Vda. de Carlos, and their children, Jo-Ann Carlos-Tabuton,
Jacqueline Carlos-Dominguez and Jimmy N. Carlos to represent them in all
cases involving their interests and shares in the properties of Juan;
3. a Special Power of Attorney 2 3 dated September 30, 2009 executed by
Lorna A. Carlos, Jerusha Ann A. Carlos and Jan Joshua A. Carlos to represent
them in all cases involving their interests and shares in the properties of Juan;
4. a Special Power of Attorney 2 4 dated May 2013 executed by Por rio C.
Rillo and Jose Rillo to sell their shares consisting of 200 square meter portion
and 199 square meter portion, respectively, of the subject property;
5. a Special Power of Attorney 2 5 dated October 15, 2009 executed by
Jocelyn N. Carlos and Jennifer N. Carlos to represent them in all cases involving
their interests and shares in the properties of Juan;
6. a Special Power of Attorney 2 6 dated May 28, 2010 executed by Bernard
Rillo in favor of Alicia D. Carlos to sell his share in the subject property by virtue
of a Compromise Agreement dated September 3, 1987 in the case of Bernard
Rillo, et al. vs. Teo lo Carlos, et al. , Civil Case No. 11975, Regional Trial Court of
Makati City, Branch CXLIV.
On November 28, 2015, Helen issued several checks 2 7 in varying amounts either
made payable to Cash or to Jaime S. Linsangan or Lorna O. Linsangan and
simultaneous thereto, Atty. Linsangan released the owner's duplicate original of TCT
No. 139061 to Helen. 2 8 It further appears that in lieu of one check in the amount of
PhP2,500,000, Atty. Linsangan received, in cash, the amounts of PhP2,000,000 on
December 4, 2015, 2 9 and PhP500,000 on December 10, 2015, 3 0 from Helen.
Upon learning of the sale, complainants allegedly requested from Atty. Linsangan
for their shares in the proceeds and for the copies of the Special Power of Attorney as
well as the case records, but that Atty. Linsangan refused. 3 1 Complainants also
requested from Atty. Linsangan, this time through another lawyer, Atty. Victor D.
Aguinaldo, that their shares in the subject property be at least segregated from the
portion sold. 3 2
On August 20, 2016, complainants wrote a letter 3 3 to Atty. Linsangan revoking
the Special Power of Attorney which they executed in the latter's favor. In said letter,
complainants accused Atty. Linsangan of conniving with their mother, Bella N. Vda. De
Carlos, in submitting the Compromise Agreement and in selling the subject property.
Complainants, however, recognized Atty. Lisangan's services for which they proposed
that the latter be paid on the basis of quantum meruit instead of fty percent (50%) of
the subject property. 3 4
Subsequently, or in September 2016, complainants led the instant
administrative complaint 3 5 against Atty. Linsangan accusing the latter of forcing them
to sign pleadings led in court, copies of which were not furnished them; of selling the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 subject property in cahoots with their mother; of evading the payment of income taxes
when he apportioned his share in the subject property to his wife and children. 3 6
By way of Comment, 3 7 Atty. Linsangan avers that the Supplemental
Compromise Agreement was never questioned by the complainants until now 3 8 and
that they had never requested for a copy thereof from him. Atty. Linsangan admits that
the subject of the sale with Helen is the property in Alabang, Muntinlupa City and that
complainants were not given a share from the payments because such were
speci cally made applicable to his and his family's share in the subject property only. 3 9
Atty. Linsangan also contends that the proposal that he be paid on the basis of
quantum meruit is only for the purpose of reducing his 50% share as stated in the
Contract for Professional Services he executed with Juan, so that the balance thereof
may accrue to complainants. 4 0
The Issue
The threshold issue to be resolved is whether respondent is guilty of violating his
lawyer's oath.
The Ruling of this Court
After a careful review of the record of the case, the Court nds that respondent
committed acts in violation of his oath as an attorney thereby warranting the Court's
exercise of its disciplinary power.
We begin by emphasizing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege
bestowed by the State upon those who show that they possess, and continue to
possess, the quali cations required by law for the conferment of such privilege. 4 1
Whether or not a lawyer is still entitled to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding
to suspend or disbar him, based on conduct rendering him un t to hold a license or to
exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. The avowed purpose of
suspending or disbarring an attorney is not to punish the lawyer, but to remove from
the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him un t to be entrusted with
the duties and responsibilities belonging to an o ce of an attorney, and thus to protect
the public and those charged with the administration of justice. 4 2 The lawyer's oath is a
source of obligations and its violation is a ground for suspension, disbarment or other
disciplinary action. 4 3
The record shows and Atty. Linsangan does not deny, that while the cases
involving the subject property were still pending resolution and final determination, Atty.
Linsangan entered into a Contract for Professional Services with Juan wherein his
attorney's fees shall be that equivalent to 50% of the value of the property, or a portion
thereof, that may be recovered. It is likewise not denied by Atty. Linsangan that he
apportioned upon himself, and to his wife and children, half of the property awarded to
complainants as heirs of Juan, through a Supplemental Compromise Agreement.
Similarly, such Supplemental Compromise Agreement was entered into by Atty.
Linsangan and the heirs of Juan concurrently with the pendency of several cases before
the CA and this Court 4 4 involving the very same property. What is more, Atty.
Linsangan, probably anticipating that he may be charged of having undue interest over
his client's property in litigation, caused another lawyer to appear but all the while
making it absolutely clear to Juan that the latter's appearance was nevertheless under
Atty. Linsangan's "direct control and supervision."acEHCD

Plainly, these acts are in direct contravention of Article 1491 (5) 4 5 of the Civil
Code which forbids lawyers from acquiring, by purchase or assignment, the property
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 that has been the subject of litigation in which they have taken part by virtue of their
profession. While Canon 10 of the old Canons of Professional Ethics, which states that
"[t]he lawyer should not purchase any interests in the subject matter of the litigation
which he is conducting," is no longer reproduced in the new Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), such proscription still applies considering that Canon 1 of the
CPR is clear in requiring that "a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law and legal process" and Rule 138, Sec. 3 which
requires every lawyer to take an oath to "obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities therein." 4 6 Here, the law transgressed by Atty. Linsangan is
Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code, in violation of his lawyer's oath.
While jurisprudence provides an exception to the above proscription, i.e., if the
payment of contingent fee is not made during the pendency of the litigation involving
the client's property but only after the judgment has been rendered in the case handled
by the lawyer, 4 7 such is not applicable to the instant case. To reiterate, the transfer to
Atty. Linsangan was made while the subject property was still under litigation, or at
least concurrently with the pendency of the certiorari proceedings in the CA and the
petitions for review in this Court. 4 8 As mentioned, there was nothing in the record
which would show that these cases were likewise dismissed with nality either before
the execution of, or by virtue of, the Compromise Agreement and the Supplemental
Compromise Agreement between complainants and Atty. Linsangan.
What is more, Atty. Linsangan, at the guise of merely waiving portions of the
subject property in favor of his wife and children, actually divided his attorney's fee with
persons who are not licensed to practice law in contravention of Rule 9.02, 4 9 Canon 9
5 0 of the CPR.

Another misconduct committed by Atty. Linsangan was his act of selling the
entire 12,331 square meters property and making it appear that he was speci cally
authorized to do so by complainants as well as by the other persons 5 1 to whom
portions of the property had been previously adjudicated. However, a perusal of the
supposed Special Power of Attorney attached to the Deed of Absolute Sale, save for
that executed by his wife and children, only authorizes Atty. Linsangan to represent
complainants in the litigation of cases involving Juan's properties. Nothing in said
Special Power of Attorney authorizes Atty. Linsangan to sell the entire property
including complainants' undivided share therein.
Atty. Linsangan's reasoning that he only took it upon himself to sell the property
because complainants were unfamiliar with real estate transactions does not exculpate
him from liability. If indeed that were the case, then it is incumbent upon Atty. Linsangan
to make it clear to the complainants that he was acting in such capacity and not as their
lawyer. 5 2 But even this, Atty. Linsangan failed to do.
Worse, Atty. Linsangan does not deny having received the downpayment for the
property from Helen. Atty. Linsangan does not also deny failing to give complainants'
share for the reason that he applied said payment as his share in the property. In so
doing, Atty. Linsangan determined all by himself that the downpayment accrues to him
and immediately appropriated the same, without the knowledge and consent of the
complainants. Such act constitutes a breach of his client's trust and a violation of
Canon 16 5 3 of the CPR. Indeed, a lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his
client's money for himself by the mere fact that the client owes him attorneys fees. 5 4
The failure of an attorney to return the client's money upon demand gives rise to the
presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice and
violation of the general morality, as well as of professional ethics; it also impairs public
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 con dence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. In short, a lawyer's
unjusti ed withholding of money belonging to his client, as in this case, warrants the
imposition of disciplinary action. 5 5
Pointedly, the relationship of attorney and client has consistently been treated as
one of special trust and con dence. An attorney must therefore exercise utmost good
faith and fairness in all his relationship with his client. Measured against this standard,
respondent's act clearly fell short and had, in fact, placed his personal interest above
that of his clients. Considering the foregoing violations of his lawyer's oath, Article
1491 (5) of the Civil Code, Rule 9.02, Canon 9, and Canon 16 of the CPR, the Court
deems it appropriate to impose upon respondent the penalty of six (6) months
suspension from the practice of law. 5 6
WHEREFORE , We nd Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan LIABLE for violations of his
lawyer's oath, Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code, Rule 9.02, Canon 9, and Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for SIX (6) months effective from the date of his receipt of this Decision. Let
copies of this Decision be circulated to all courts of the country for their information
and guidance, and spread in the personal record of Atty. Linsangan.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Bersamin, Jardeleza and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Docketed as Civil Case No. 94-1964 filed before the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City,
Branch 256; Rollo, p. 4.

2. Entitled "Juan de Dios E. Carlos vs. Felicidad Sandoval, etc., et al.," and docketed as Civil
Case No. 95-135 filed before the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256; id.

3. Docketed as CV No. 53229.

4. Entitled "Bernard Rillo, et al. vs. Sps. Pedro and Jovita Balbanero" and docketed as Civil Case
No. 97-022 filed before Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256.

5. Entitled "Juan de Dios Carlos vs. Gen. Pedro R. Balbanero" and docketed as Civil Case No.
3256 filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City.

6. Entitled "Pedro R. Balbanero vs. Teofilo Carlos, et al.," and docketed as Civil Case No. 18358
filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 60.

7. Docketed as SP No. 38097, SP No. 40819, and SP No. 39267.

8. Docketed as G.R. No. L-127257, L-128613, and L-12517.
9. Rollo, pp. 4-6.
10. Id. at 5-6.
11. Docketed as Civil Case No. 11975.

12. Rollo, p. 105.

13. Id. at 4.
14. Id. at 19-20.
15. The cases before the CA as mentioned in the Compromise Agreement were the cases
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 53229, SP 40819 and SP 39267 while the cases before this
Court as mentioned in the Compromise Agreement were the cases docketed as G.R. Nos.
135830, 136035, 137743, 140931 and 179922; id., at 20.
16. Id. at 22.
17. Id. at 23-29.
18. Id. at 27.
19. Id. at 79-80.

20. Id. at 42-43.

21. Id. at 51-53.
22. Id. at 59-61.
23. Id. at 63-67.

24. Id. at 68-69.

25. Id. at 71-73.
26. Id. at 76-77.
27. China Banking Corporation Check Nos. 0002585043, 0002585044, 0002585046,
0002585047, 0002585048, 0002585049, 0002585050 and RCBC Check Nos. 9000008,
9000009, 9000010, 9000011 and 9000012; id. at 96.
28. Id.
29. Id. at 85.
30. Id. at 86.
31. Id. at 135.

32. Id. at 146, 148.

33. Id. at 15-18.
34. Id. at 16.
35. Id. at 1-3.

36. Id. at 2.
37. Id. at 103-116.
38. Id. at 110.
39. Id. at 110-111.
40. Id. at 112.

41. Mecaral v. Atty. Velasquez , 636 Phil. 1, 6 (2010), p. 4, citing Mendoza v. Atty. Deciembre ,
599 Phil. 182, 191 (2009); Yap-Paras v. Atty. Paras, 491 Phil. 382, 390 (2005).

42. Atty. Alcantara, et al. v. Atty. De Vera , 650 Phil. 214, 221 (2010), citing Marcelo v. Atty.
Javier, Sr., 288 Phil. 762, 776-777.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com

 43. Reyes v. Gaa, 316 Phil. 97, 102 (1995).
44. Supra note 14.
45. Art. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial
auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:
xxx xxx xxx

    (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and
other o cers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property
and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose
jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes
the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the
property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part
by virtue of their profession.
46. See Angel L. Bautista v. Atty. Ramon A. Gonzales , A.M. No. 1625, February 12, 1990, 182
SCRA 151, 160.
47. See Biascan v. Atty. Lopez, 456 Phil. 173, 180 (2003).
48. See Valencia v. Atty. Cabanting , 273 Phil. 534, 542-543 (1991), where the Court suspended
respondent for six (6) months from the practice of law when he purchased his client's
property which was still the subject of a pending certiorari proceeding.
49. 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
latter's death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to
persons specified in the agreement; or
    (b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete un nished legal business of a deceased
lawyer; or
  (c) Where a lawyer or law rm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan even
if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit sharing agreement.
5 0 . CANON 9 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
51. Namely, Felicidad Carlos, Pedro Balbanero, and Bernard Rillos.

52. Rule 15.08 of the CPR provides:

    A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently with the
practice of law shall make it clear to his client whether he is acting as lawyer or in
another capacity.
53. CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS
CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
54. Cabigao and Yzquierdo v. Fernando Rodrigo, 57 Phil. 20, 23 (1932).

55. Sencio v. Atty. Calvadores , 443 Phil. 490, 494 (2003); Reyes v. Maglaya , 313 Phil. 1, 7
(1995).
56. Supra note 44.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com