EN BANC

[A.C. No. 11724. July 31, 2018.]

(Formerly CBD No. 14-4109)

HDI HOLDINGS PHILIPPINES, INC. , complainant, vs. ATTY.

EMMANUEL N. CRUZ , respondent.

DECISION

PER CURIAM : p

Before the Court is an administrative complaint led by complainant HDI

Holdings Philippines, Inc. (HDI), represented by Darmo N. Castillo, 1 against respondent
Atty. Emmanuel N. Cruz (Atty. Cruz) for violations of Canons 16.01, 16.02, 16.03, 16.04
and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The facts are as follows:
HDI is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines with o ce address at 4th Floor, Francisco Gold I Condominium, 784 Edsa,
Quezon City, Philippines.
In its complaint, HDI alleged that on July 10, 2010, they retained the services of
Atty. Cruz as its in-house corporate counsel and corporate secretary. In the beginning,
HDI's directors and o cers were pleased with Atty. Cruz's performance, thus, in time,
he earned their trust and con dence that he was eventually tasked to handle the
corporation's important and con dential matters. Ultimately, Atty. Cruz became a friend
to most of HDI's directors, officers and staff members.
However, HDI lamented that Atty. Cruz's seeming friendliness was apparently a
mere façade in order to gain the trust of HDI's o cers and directors for his nancial
gain. HDI averred that through Atty. Cruz's deception and machinations, he managed to
misappropriate a total of Forty-One Million Three Hundred Seventeen Thousand One
Hundred Sixty-Seven and Eighteen Centavos (P41,317,167.18), in the following manner,
to wit:
The cash bid and the unpaid personal loans

On September 21, 2011, HDI released Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) in

cash to Atty. Cruz to be used as cash bid for the purchase of a parcel of land located at
E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue. Atty. Cruz signed a cash voucher dated September 21, 2011
evidencing the receipt of the said amount. 2
However, after HDI lost in the bid, Atty. Cruz failed to promptly return the money
to the company. HDI made several demands to Atty. Cruz for the return of the money
but it was only after four (4) months, or on January 18, 2012, when Atty. Cruz nally
returned the said amount. Because Atty. Cruz eventually returned the P3 million, HDI
gave him the benefit of the doubt and continued to trust him.
A few months later, sometime in April 2012, Atty. Cruz approached HDI's o cers
and asked for a Four Million Peso (P4,000,000.00) personal loan allegedly to be used in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 purchasing his house. Based on his promises and his position with the company, HDI's
o cers loaned him the said amount. A Contract of Loan 3 was executed on April 30,
2012 between Atty. Cruz and Chia Tzu Chern, one of HDI's o cers, where the former
agreed to pay his loan in the amount of Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00) by June 15,
2012.
Thereafter, on May 3, 2012, Atty. Cruz informed the management of HDI that
there was going to be another bidding for the E. Rodriguez property. On May 9, 2012, he
sent an e-mail 4 to Conchita G. Nicolas, the Corporate Treasurer, asking for Three
Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) for the bid deposit. Banking on his assurances to HDI
that the same amount was fully refundable and/or convertible as earnest money for the
sale, HDI again gave Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) to Atty. Cruz, who signed a
check voucher 5 dated May 10, 2012 evidencing receipt of the said amount.
Few days later, Atty. Cruz asked for an additional Three Million Pesos
(P3,000,000.00) for the bid deposit, claiming that it will be added to their earlier bid
deposit of P3,000,000.00, and that the same was likewise refundable and/or
convertible as earnest money for the sale. On May 14, 2012, Atty. Cruz signed the check
voucher 6 acknowledging receipt of the additional P3 million as cash bid bond.
On July 18 and 19, 2012, Atty. Cruz sent e-mails 7 to HDI's Chairman, Brandon
Chia and begged for another Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00) as personal loan. He
alleged that his brother has a serious gambling problem, and that their family had been
threatened by several loan sharks because of his brother's debts. The additional
P4,000,000.00 personal loan was supposedly to pay off his brother's debts and keep
his family out of harm. Feeling sorry for Atty. Cruz, Mr. Chia agreed to give him a loan
out of his own pocket.
Thereafter, HDI learned that it did not win the rebidding on the E. Rodriguez
property. Thus, HDI demanded for the immediate return of the Six Million Pesos
(P6,000,000.00) bid bond. However, despite several and repeated demands, Atty. Cruz
did not heed the same.
Later, in an e-mail 8 dated September 27, 2012, Atty. Cruz confessed that he
converted the allotted cash bid bond in the total amount of 6,000,000.00 for his
personal use, to wit:
x x x It was at this time sir that my brother told us that he still had some
obligations with some other nanciers and that he was getting death threats
already. My mom said that she really doesn't know how to pay for all of it
immediately because of the staggering amount (14M including the rst 4M).
During that time sir I was supposed to get the bid bond for the second bid for
the property beside our newly-acquired Petron property. We followed the same
cash bid procedure sir in our rst attempt to acquire the property. However,
instead of remitting back the bond money after the bid just like in our rst
attempt, out of desperation and for fear of the life of my family, I unilaterally
decided to use that money sir instead of returning it. I thought of
using it rst to settle with the nanciers and thereafter seek the help
of other friends so I can immediately return the money to which I
failed to do sir .
Sir, in relaying to you this, I am not justifying or trying to rationalize out
what I've done. I just wanted to relay what really happened. Bottom line sir, I
know what I did was wrong sir and I deeply apologize for my act. I know I have
affected a lot of things by my acts. I have not only placed myself at risk but also
the company. My personal concerns got in the way of my work and for that I'm
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 truly sorry.
Believing Atty. Cruz's sincerity in his apology and that he truly acted out of
concern for his family, HDI forgave him and agreed to just convert the misappropriated
Six Million Pesos (P6,000,000.00) into another loan. Thus, another Contract of Loan 9
was executed, this time for the amount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00),
representing the second Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00) loan made in July, plus the
missing Six Million Pesos (P6,000,000.00). On September 15, 2012, Atty. Cruz also
executed an acknowledgment, admitting his Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00)
outstanding debt to Mr. Chia. 1 0
Transaction concerning the property covered by TCT No. 75276

Sometime in the last quarter of 2011, Capital Growth, Inc. (CGI), a corporation
wholly-owned by HDI Holdings, Inc., through Atty. Cruz, arranged and facilitated the
purchase of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certi cate of Title (TCT) No. 75276 1 1
which was co-owned by Francisco G. Castillo, Francisco Castillo, and Cristina C.
Castillo.
On December 21, 2011, Atty. Cruz sent an e-mail to Mr. Chia, informing him that
CGI intended to make payment of the purchase price of the property and thus
requested Mr. Chia, being the Chairman of HDI, for an amount of Twenty-Six Million Nine
Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P26,987,500.00). The said
amount was released by CGI, upon Atty. Cruz's instructions to one Atty. Mauro Anthony
Cabading III (Atty. Cabading) , the alleged attorney-in-fact of the Castillo family, who
duly acknowledged receipt of the payment. 1 2
Thereafter, CGI asked Atty. Cruz several times about the transfer of the title of
the property to the company's name but the latter gave no de nite answers.
Consequently, on July 16, 2013, or more than a year later, a representative of CGI met
with Francisco C. Castillo, the seller. It was then that HDI discovered that the purchase
price of the property was only Twenty-Five Million Two Hundred Ninety-Eight Thousand
Four Hundred Pesos (P25,298,400.00) and that they only received the said amount, and
not the P26,987,500.00 as Atty. Cruz's claimed. Further, the Castillo family informed
them that they never authorized Atty. Cabading to be their attorney-in-fact.
After discovering the discrepancy of P1,689,100.00 from the true purchase price
of the property, CGI demanded from Atty. Cruz and Atty. Cabading the return of the
difference in the overpriced amount. However, despite numerous verbal demands made
by HDI, Atty. Cruz failed to return the P1,689,100.00.
The fictitious sale of a certain Quezon
City property covered by TCT No. N-
308973

On May 10, 2012, Atty. Cruz sent an e-mail, 1 3 to Mr. Chia, informing him of a 500
square meter property for sale located in Quezon City, covered by TCT No. N-308973.
They were told that the owner of the Quezon City property died, and the heirs who now
owned the same were already entertaining buyers. Atty. Cruz further stated in his e-mail
that:
As advised by their lawyer, the family is really intending to sell it already so sir
we might need to rm up in paper with them already as [there] are other
interested parties, I would like to ask for your advise regarding the offer that I
will be making tom sir." 1 4
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 On May 12, 2012, Atty. Cruz sent another e-mail 1 5 to Mr. Chia con rming the
meeting with the sellers and their lawyer and alleged that he offered P42,500.00 per
square meter, as advised, which price the heirs found acceptable. Thereafter, Atty. Cruz
advised Mr. Chia that the heirs required an earnest money of P5,000,000.00 but the full
payment of the purchase price of P21,250,000.00 should immediately follow. He added
that it was subject to full reimbursement in the event the heirs defaulted in the contract.
Because Atty. Cruz emphasized the urgency of the sale, HDI immediately started
processing the earnest money of P5,000,000.00 to be given to the heirs. Atty. Cruz then
informed HDI that the check should be payable again to Atty. Cabading, the alleged
family lawyer of the heirs.
On May 15, 2012, HDI gave a Planters Bank Cashier's Check No. 578376 1 6 in the
amount of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) to Atty. Cruz as earnest money for the
QC property. In return, copies of the contract to sell and deed of absolute sale signed
by a certain Federico Castillo II as the seller were given to HDI. 1 7
On May 23, 2012, HDI released to Atty. Cruz another cashier's check 1 8 in the
amount of Sixteen Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P16,250,000.00)
representing the balance on the full purchase price of the Q.C. property, payable to Atty.
Cabading. The two manager's checks were deposited into the Banco De Oro Account
No. 2138009864 of Cabading.
Thereafter, HDI followed up with Atty. Cruz the transfer of the title of the QC
property in its name but nothing happened. Consequently, HDI directly communicated
with one of the heirs, Mr. Jose Castillo. To HDI's surprise, it turned out that the QC
property was never sold to HDI, and the owners of the QC property was not at all
interested in selling the property. Further, HDI found out that the alleged heirs did not
have a family lawyer by the name of Atty. Cabading. The signed copies of the contract
to sell and deed of absolute sale turned out to be mere forgeries as there was also no
person in the name of Federico Castillo II, the supposed named seller in the documents.
Due to this discovery, HDI demanded from Atty. Cruz the return of the total
amount of Twenty One Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P21,250,000.00),
which was released to him for the purchase of the Q.C. property. To date, Atty. Cruz has
ignored HDI's demands, and there has been no attempt on his part to return the
P21,250,000.00 he pocketed.
The unremitted rentals

CGI owned two (2) parcels of land located at E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue covered by
TCT Nos. 104620 and 104621 which were being leased to Petron Corporation until
March 6, 2018.
Since 2011, HDI, through CGI, has not received rental payments from Petron.
Consequently, in the afternoon of July 2, 2013, the Executive Assistant to the Chairman
of HDI, Ms. Wilhelmina Liwanag, called Petron to inquire and/or follow up on the unpaid
rentals from 2011 to 2012 due to HDI as the new owner of CGI. She was then informed
that two (2) checks were already released to Atty. Cruz after he presented a Secretary's
Certificate 1 9 authorizing himself to receive the rental payments.
The next day, Ms. Liwanag, together with the Chairman of HDI and a director of
CGI, went to the o ce of Petron at SMC Head O ce complex to verify the truth of
Petron's officer's claims. They were presented the following documents:
a. The unauthorized Secretary's Certi cate dated January 10, 2013 20
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 which purportedly authorized Atty. Cruz and a certain Adolph Ilas to collect the
rental payments for the subject property;
b. Acknowledgment receipts for the rental payments signed by Atty. Cruz; 2 1
c. Photocopies of the checks received by Atty. Cruz, i.e., the rst check
received on January 18, 2013 in the amount of Two Million One Hundred Fifty
Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Two Pesos and Twenty-Five Centavos
(P2,150,282.25); 2 2 and the second check, in the form of manager's check
received on March 12, 2013 in the amount of Two Million Two Hundred Fifty-
Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-Four Pesos and Ninety-Three Centavos
(P2,257,784.93); 2 3 and
d. Two Bureau of Internal Revenue Forms No. 2307 with Atty. Cruz as the
named payee. 2 4
Upon discovery, HDI immediately demanded from Atty. Cruz the rental payments
in the total amount of Four Million Four Hundred Eight Thousand Sixty-Seven Pesos and
Eighteen Centavos (P4,408,067.18) 2 5 which he failed to turn over.
Later, HDI nally decided to confront him about his actions. On July 4, 2013, Atty.
Cruz went to HDI's o ce where he broke down and admitted to everything. After
writing his confession, 2 6 Atty. Cruz likewise tendered his resignation from HDI. On the
same occasion, Atty. Cruz's relatives were present and also expressed their
commitment to help pay Atty. Cruz's debts with HDI. 2 7
However, even after several demand letters, Atty. Cruz failed to return the
misappropriated money.
Considering the above-cited actuations of Atty. Cruz, it is evident that he violated
Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Rule 1.02, Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Rules 16.01, 16.02, 16.03, 16.04 and
17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HDI alleged that Atty. Cruz failed to live
up to the standards expected of a lawyer, thus, he should be disbarred from the
practice of law.
On February 5, 2014, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) directed Atty.
Cruz to file his Answer on the complaint against him. 2 8
During the mandatory conference before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD), only the counsel for HDI appeared. Thus, on October 7, 2014, the IBP-CBD
terminated the preliminary mandatory conference and directed the parties to submit
their respective position papers.
On July 6, 2015, in its Report and Recommendation, 2 9 the IBP-CBD
recommended that Atty. Cruz be disbarred from the practice of law.
In a Resolution No. XXII-2016-446 3 0 dated August 27, 2016, the IBP-Board of
Governors resolved to adopt and approve the report and recommendation of the IBP-
CBD.

RULING

We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP.

In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is
preponderance of evidence which the complainant has the burden to discharge.
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a
whole, superior to or has a greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief compared to the presented
contrary evidence. 3 1
However, in the instant case, Atty. Cruz has chosen to remain silent despite the
severity of the allegations against him. He was given several opportunities to comment
on the charges yet no comment came. The natural instinct of man impels him to resist
an unfounded claim or imputation and defend himself. It is totally against our human
nature to just remain reticent and say nothing in the face of false accusations. Silence in
such cases is almost always construed as implied admission of the truth thereof.
Consequently, we are left with no choice but to deduce his implicit admission of the
charges levelled against him. Qui tacet consentive videtur. Silence gives consent. 3 2
Thus, we nd that the evidence submitted by HDI, albeit secondary evidence only
being mere photocopies, when put together with Atty. Cruz' written confession 3 3 and
his subsequent non-cooperation during the proceedings before the IBP, would give a
convincing conclusion that indeed Atty. Cruz is guilty of the following reprehensible
acts, to wit:
(a) misappropriation of the cash bid in the total amount of P6,000,000.00
which remains unpaid;
(b) contracting unsecured personal loans with HDI in the total amount of
P8,000,000.00 which remains unpaid;
(c) deceiving HDI as to the true selling price of the Q.C. property which
resulted in overpayment in the amount of P1,689,100.00 which remains unpaid;
(d) fabricating a ctitious sale by executing a ctitious contract to sell and
deed of sale in order to obtain money in the amount of P21,250,000.00 from
HDI which remains unpaid;
(e) collecting rental payments amounting to P4,408,067.18, without
authority, and thereafter, failed to turn over the same to HDI; and
(f) executing a fake Secretary's Certi cate appointing himself as the
authorized person to receive the payments of the lease rentals.
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR provide:
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS
OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.0 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Good moral character is necessary for a lawyer to practice the profession. An
attorney is expected not only to be professionally competent, but to also have moral
integrity. 3 4 Deceit and lack of accountability and integrity re ect on his ability to
perform his functions as a lawyer, who is always expected to act and appear to act
lawfully and honestly, and must uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
Atty. Cruz failed in these respects as a lawyer.
In the instant case, considering all the above-cited infractions, it is beyond
dispute that Atty. Cruz is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct. In
several occasions, he manifested a propensity to lie and deceive his client in order to
obtain money. Obviously, his misrepresentations in order to compel HDI to release
money for cash bids, ctitious purchase of a property, the overpriced purchase price of
the Q.C. property and his misrepresentation that he had authority to collect rentals in
behalf of HDI and CGI, as well as his execution of ctitious documents to give
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 semblance of truth to his misrepresentations, constitute grave violations of the CPR
and the lawyer's oath. These reprehensible conduct of Atty. Cruz without doubt
breached the highly fiduciary relationship between lawyers and clients.
This Court also sees it t to note that the CPR strongly condemns Atty. Cruz's
conduct in handling the funds of HDI. Rules 16.01 and 16.02 of the Code provides:
Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.
Rule 16.02 — A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and
apart from his own and those others kept by him.
The duciary nature of the relationship between the counsel and his client
imposes on the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or
received for or from his client. When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client
for a particular purpose as in cash for biddings and purchase of properties, as in this
case, he should promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If he does not
use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the client. His
failure either to render an accounting or to return the money if the intended purpose of
the money does not materialize constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. 3 5
Atty. Cruz's failure 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 of and in
violation of the trust reposed in him by the client. It is a gross violation of general
morality as well as of professional ethics; it impairs public con dence in the legal
profession and deserves punishment. 3 6
Atty. Cruz's unbecoming conduct towards complainant did not stop here.
Records reveal that he likewise violated Canon 16.04 of the CPR, which states that "[a]
lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer
lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client."
In his private capacity, Atty. Cruz requested from HDI, not just one, but two loans
of considerable amounts as evidenced by contracts of loan and acknowledgement
receipts, the authenticity of which was undisputed. The rst time, he borrowed
P4,000,000.00 for the purchase of his house; and the second time, he borrowed
another P4,000,000.00 in order to help his brother who allegedly has serious gambling
debts. Apparently, these acts of borrowing money were committed by Atty. Cruz in his
private capacity but were assented to by HDI because of the trust and con dence it has
in him as a lawyer. Worse, the loans were unsecured which left HDI unprotected.
As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business
transaction must be characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. The measure of
good faith which an attorney is required to exercise in his dealings with his client is a
much higher standard that is required in business dealings where the parties trade at
arms length. Business transactions between an attorney and his client are disfavored
and discouraged by the policy of the law. Hence, courts carefully watch these
transactions to assure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his client. This rule is
founded on public policy for, by virtue of his o ce, an attorney is in an easy position to
take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client. Thus, no presumption of
innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is considered in an attorney's favor. 3 7
Clearly, in the instant case, Atty. Cruz's acts of contracting unsecured personal loans
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 and receiving money as loan proceeds from HDI, and thereafter failing to pay the same
are indicative of his lack of integrity and sense of fair dealing.
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and
his client is one imbued with trust and con dence. And as true as any natural tendency
goes, this "trust and con dence" is prone to abuse. The rule against borrowing of
money by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking
advantage of his in uence over his client. The rule presumes that the client is
disadvantaged by the lawyer's ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his
obligation. In Frias v. Atty. Lozada , 3 8 the Court categorically declared that a lawyer's
act of asking a client for a loan, as what Atty. Cruz did, is unethical and that the act of
borrowing money from a client was a violation of Canon 16.04 of the CPR.
Corollary, in borrowing money from HDI and thereafter failing to pay the same
within the agreed period, Atty. Cruz failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. We, thus, likewise nd Atty. Cruz equally liable for violating Canon 7 of the
CPR which reads: Canon 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
That being said, the Court has consistently held that deliberate failure to pay just
debts constitutes gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned. Lawyers
are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system.
They are expected to maintain not only legal pro ciency, but also a high standard of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people's faith and con dence in
the judicial system is ensured. They must, at all times, faithfully perform their duties to
society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of
financial obligations. 3 9
Finally, Atty. Cruz's indifference to the IBP's directives to le his comment on the
allegations against him cannot be countenanced. He disregarded the proceedings
before the IBP despite receipt of summons and notices. Atty. Cruz's act of not ling his
answer and ignoring the hearings set by the Investigating Commissioner, despite due
notice, further aggravated his already disgraceful attitude. 4 0 As an o cer of the Court,
Atty. Cruz is expected to know that said directives of the IBP, as the investigating arm
of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers, is not a mere request but an order
which should be complied with promptly and completely. 4 1
Considering the above-cited infractions, it is, thus, beyond dispute that Atty. Cruz
demonstrated not just disregard of his duties as a lawyer but a wanton betrayal of the
trust of his client and, in general, the public. For taking advantage of the trust and
con dence of the complainant, for engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct and
fraudulent acts for personal gain, and disrespecting the IBP due to non-compliance of
its directive to le comment. His acts constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in
his o ce as attorney. His propensity to defraud his client, and the public in general,
render him un t to continue discharging the trust reposed in him as a member of the
Bar. Atty. Cruz, indeed, deserves no less than the penalty of disbarment.
However, insofar as the return of the misappropriated money, the same should
be quali ed. As to the money which Atty. Cruz borrowed as personal loan, the Court
cannot order him to return the money the borrowed from complainant in his private
capacity. Complainant may file a separate civil case against Atty. Cruz for this purpose.
I n Foster v. Atty. Agtang , 4 2 the Court held that it cannot order the lawyer to
return money to complainant if he or she acted in a private capacity because its
findings in administrative cases have no bearing on liabilities which have no intrinsic link
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 to the lawyer's professional engagement. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers,
the only issue is whether the o cer of the court is still t to be allowed to continue as a
member of the Bar. The only concern of the Court is the determination of respondent's
administrative liability. Its ndings have no material bearing on other judicial actions
which the parties may choose against each other. 4 3
However, insofar as the money received by Atty. Cruz from HDI, in his
professional capacity, to wit: P6,000,000.00, representing the total amount released for
bidding; 4 4 P21,250,000.00, representing the total amount released for the purported
purchase of a property which turned out to be ctitious; 4 5 P4,408,067.18 representing
the unremitted rentals from Petron, 4 6 and P1,689,100.00 representing the
overpayment in the overpriced Q.C. property, 4 7 these amounts should be returned as it
was borne out of their professional relationship.

PENALTY

Jurisprudence reveals that in similar cases 4 8 where lawyers abused the trust
and con dence reposed in them by their clients as well as committed unlawful,
dishonest, and deceitful conduct, as in this case, the Court found them guilty of gross
misconduct and disbarred them.
As the infractions in the foregoing cases are similar to those committed by Atty.
Cruz, in the instant case, the Court deems that the same penalty of disbarment be
imposed against him. Clearly, as herein discussed, Atty. Cruz committed deliberate
violations of the Code as he dishonestly dealt with HDI and misappropriated the funds
intended to a speci c purpose for his personal gain. Atty. Cruz, thus, deserves the
ultimate punishment of disbarment.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING , we nd respondent ATTY. EMMANUEL
CRUZ , guilty of gross misconduct by violating the Canon of Professional Responsibility
through his unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct, and willful disobedience of
lawful orders rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession.
He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off of
the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Furthermore, Atty. Cruz is ORDERED to RETURN to complainant HDI the
amounts of P6,000,000.00, P21,250,000.00, P4,408,067.18 and P1,689,100.00, with
legal interest, if it is still unpaid, within ninety (90) days from the finality of this Decision.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the O ce of the Bar Con dant, which
shall forthwith record it in the personal le of respondent. All the courts of the
Philippines; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which shall disseminate copies
thereof to all its Chapters; and all administrative and quasi-judicial agencies of the
Republic of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perlas-
Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, Martires, Tijam, Reyes, Jr. and Gesmundo, JJ.,
concur.

Footnotes

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 1. In a Board Resolution, HDI authorized Darmo N. Castillo to represent them in the institution of
the instant case against Atty. Cruz; rollo, p. 18.

2. Rollo, p. 20.
3. Id. at 21-22.
4. Id. at 22.
5. Id. at 23.

6. Id. at 25.
7. Id. at 26-27.
8. Id. at 28-29. (Emphasis supplied)
9. Id. at 30-31.
10. Id. at 32.

11. Id. at 33-35.

12. Id. at 36.
13. Id. at 37.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 38.

16. Id. at 40.

17. Id. at 41-49.
18. Id. at 142.
19. Id. at 50.

20. Id.
21. Id. at 51.
22. Id.
23. Id. at 52.
24. Id. at 53-54.

25. Id. at 154-155.

26. Id. at 55-58.
27. Id. at 59-60.
28. Id. at 70.
29. Id. at 171-181.

30. Id. at 169-170.

31. Ylaya v. Atty. Gacott, 702 Phil. 390, 407-409 (2013).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 32. Judge Noel-Bertulfo v. Nuñez, 625 Phil. 111, 121 (2010), citing Grefaldeo v. Judge Lacson,
355 Phil. 266, 271 (1998).
33. Supra note 26.

34. See Arciga v. Maniwang, 193 Phil. 730, 735 (1981).

35. See Treñas v. People, 680 Phil. 368, 387 (2012).
36. Id.
37. Nakpil v. Atty. Valdes, 350 Phil. 412, 424 (1998).

38. 513 Phil. 512, 521 (2005).

39. Barrientos v. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro, 480 Phil. 661, 671 (2004).
40. Rollo, p. 171.
41. Gone v. Atty. Ga, 662 Phil. 610, 617 (2011).
42. 749 Phil. 576, 596 (2014).

43. Roa v. Atty. Moreno, 633 Phil. 1, 8 (2010).

44. Supra note 3.

45. Supra note 17.

46. Supra note 25.

47. Supra note 13.

48. Tabang v. Atty. Gacott, 713 Phil. 578 (2013); Brennisen v. Atty. Contawi, 686 Phil. 342
(2012); Sabayle v. Hon. Tandayag, 242 Phil. 224 (1988); Daroy v. Legaspi, 160 Phil. 306
(1975).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com