Huang vs. Zombrano

DIWEI "BRYAN" HUANG vs. ATTY. JUDE FRANCIS V.
ZAMBRANO
A.C. No. 12460, March 26, 2019
PER CURIAM:
Facts:
Huang is a citizen of Singapore, who is abroad at most times and comes to the Philippines only
for business. Sometime in October 2014, Huang engaged Atty. Zambrano's services to pursue a
money claim against certain individuals. In view of such engagement, respondent filed an estafa
case against several individuals. Complainant paid P50,000 to respondent for the latter’s
services.
Respondent informed complainant that respondents in the estafa case expressed their willingness
to settle and pay P250,000 to which complainant agreed. As the complainant was abroad,
respondent insisted that the payment should be coursed through him before it was to be
transferred to Huang.
The respondents in the Estafa Case eventually paid Huang the settlement money via Atty.
Zambrano. When Huang inquired as to how he could get his money, Atty. Zambrano answered
that the dismissal of the Estafa Case should first be processed. For two months, Huang constantly
followed-up and demanded his money from Atty. Zambrano but to no avail. This prompted the
filing of a disbarment case.
The CBD-IBP recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 2 years.
It was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.
Issue:
Whether respondent violated the CPR
Ruling: Yes
Once money or property is received by a lawyer on behalf of his client, the former has the
obligation to account for the said money or property and remit the same immediately to the
latter. To ignore consecutive follow-ups and demands from the client without any acceptable
reason corrodes the client's trust and stains the legal profession.
By his actuations, Atty. Zambrano damaged his reliability and reputation as a lawyer. There is no
dispute that he had received the PhP250,000.00 from the respondents in the Estafa Case. He
rejected Huang's sound suggestion to have the settlement money directly deposited by said
respondents to his account. He also refused Huang's alternative proposition to have his friend
receive the money on his behalf. There is evidently a premeditated effort by Atty. Zambrano to
ensure that the settlement money would be given to him.
Furthermore, the reasons he gave for failing to remit the settlement money to Huang were highly
dubious, if not shallow and baseless.
There is no law or jurisprudence which requires the formal dismissal of the case before the
lawyer yields possession of his client's money. In advising Huang of the same, Atty. Zambrano
had acted deceitfully - willfully misleading Huang and abusing the trust and confidence his client
reposed in him. This is in contravention of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR which bids lawyers
not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
The foregoing likewise renders highly doubtful Atty. Zambrano's claims of heavy workload and
family problems as additional excuses for failing to remit the settlement money to Huang, which
were seemingly meant only to further thwart Huang's efforts to get his money. Even assuming
that Atty. Zambrano's claims were true, these do not absolve him from complying with his
professional obligations as a lawyer. It would not have taken much time or effort for him to
transfer the settlement money to Huang especially given the different remote and online options
now available for fund transfers.
It bears to note that after all this time, Atty. Zambrano still has not made any effort to remit the
settlement money which rightfully belongs to Huang. Being undisputed, the presumption that he
had appropriated Huang's settlement money for his own use becomes conclusive.
Worse, Atty. Zambrano exhibited disrespect to the IBP by disregarding the orders of the CBD-
IBP as an investigating body and failing to participate in much of the investigation proceedings.
He neither proffered any explanation nor expressed any remorse for his disreputable actions not
only towards Huang, but also towards the IBP.
A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred or suspended from his office as an
attorney, for violation of the lawyer's oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal profession
as embodied in the CPR. Lawyers should bear in mind that the practice of law is a profession, a
form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted only to those who are qualified and
who possess good moral character. The appropriate penalty for a delinquent lawyer depends on
the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts.
In the case at bar, Atty. Zambrano's unprofessional and unethical actuations in breach of his
attorney-client relationship with Huang and his insolent comportment towards the IBP which
was investigating the administrative complaint against him demonstrate attitude and conduct
unbecoming a member of the legal profession and an officer of the Court, thus, justifying his
disbarment.
The practice of law is a privilege given to few, and it is granted only to those of good moral
character. The Bar maintains and aims to uphold a high standard of honesty and fair dealing.
Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with
their clients or the public at large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal
profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty. Atty. Zambrano's alarming
propensity for duplicity and lack of atonement render him unworthy of the privilege to continue
in the practice of law.

Huang vs. Zombrano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Huang vs. Zombrano

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Huang vs. Zombrano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DIWEI "BRYAN" HUANG vs. ATTY. JUDE FRANCIS V.

A.C. No. 12460, March 26, 2019

Whether respondent violated the CPR

You might also like