A.C. No.

10684, January 24, 2018

ILUMINADA D. YUZON, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARNULFO M.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

This administrative case arose from a Complaint1 filed by Iluminada Yuzon Vda. de

Complainant's Position

Iluminada alleged that sometime on December 23, 2008, she gave Atty. Agleron the amount of
Php400,000.00, and on January 12, 2009, the amount of P600,000.00 in Managers Check, or the total
amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) meant for the purchase of a house and a lot of one Alexander
Tenebroso (Alexander), situated at Mati, Davao Oriental. However, since the intended purchase did not
materialize, Iluminada demanded the return of the aforesaid amounts that she entrusted to Atty. Agleron,
which the latter failed to return. On February 24, 2009, Iluminada, through her lawyer Atty. Vivencio V.
Jumamil (Atty. Vivencio), through a letter, demanded the return of the amount of P750,000.00. On March 2,
2009, Atty. Agleron replied through a letter and explained that he already returned the amount of
P418,000.00, and that the remaining balance is only P582,000.00 which shall be paid upon payment of his
client who borrowed the said amount for his emergency operation after an accident which took place on
January 13, 2009.

Iluminada also alleged that she filed an Estafa case under Article 315, paragraph 1(B) of the Revised Penal
Code against Atty. Agleron.

Respondent's Position

Atty. Agleron, among others, claims that the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) was delivered to
him at the Office of the Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., Davao City upon the maturity of two (2) postdated
checks issued by Reverend Pastor Apollo Quiboloy (Rev. Quiboloy); that the amount of P600,000.00 was
delivered on December 15, 2008, and the other check which matured on January 15, 2009, in the amount of
P400,000.00, were all deposited with the Philippine National Bank, Mati Branch for safekeeping, while
awaiting for the finalization of the transaction with Alexander regarding the acquisition of the house subject
of Civil Case No. 2287-7-2007, then pending in the Municipal Trial Court of Mati, Davao Oriental; and that
the total amount of P438,000.00 was delivered to herein Iluminada on different occasions, as per her
request, and that the balance of P582,000.00 was never misappropriated and/or converted to the personal
use and benefit of Atty. Agleron as the said amount was borrowed for the emergency operation of a client
who, at that time has nobody to turn to for help. Thus, Atty. Agleron's infraction should not warrant the
imposition of the supreme penalty of disbarment. Atty. Agleron prayed that, if he be found guilty, the lesser
penalty of fine should be imposed considering he rendered almost fifty (50) years of service in the
government, and he is also an Officer and Member of the IBP, Davao Oriental Chapter.

Report and Recommendation

After the mandatory conference on January 17, 2012 and upon a thorough evaluation of the evidence
presented by the parties in their respective position papers, the IBP-CBD submitted its Report and
Recommendation, dated March 30, 2012, finding Atty. Agleron to have violated Section 27,2 Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court. Thus, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Agleron administratively liable and
recommended that he be meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year. This
ruling is based on Atty. Agleron's admission that he is still in possession of the amount of P582,000.00.
Thus, the Investigating Commissioner is convinced that Atty. Agleron is guilty of Gross Misconduct under
Section 27, Rule 138 for violating his duty to his client by converting and using his client's money.
Accordingly, the penalty of suspension of one (1) year from the practice of law in any court was imposed on
Atty. Agleron. The various mitigating factors: that Atty. Agleron has been a Member and Officer of the IBP
Davao Oriental Chapter; that he has been in the practice of law, as Assistant and later on as Provincial
Fiscal; and, that he was able to retire from the government service for a span of almost fifty (50)
years sans  any disciplinary records were taken into consideration. The Commissioner also recommended the
return to Iluminada of the amount of P582,000.00 with legal interest of twelve percent (12%) from May 5,
2010, with warning that a repetition of similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

In a Resolution3 dated August 31, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the aforesaid
Report and Recommendation. Atty. Agleron moved for reconsideration,4 whereas Iluminada moved for a
partial reconsideration5 explaining that the penalty meted on Atty. Agleron dilutes the very essence of the
offense charged. However, both were denied by the IBP Board of Governors through a Notice of Resolution
No. XXI-2014-3296 dated May 4, 2014.

Atty. Agleron filed with this Court an Urgent Motion for the Immediate Lifting of the Order of Suspension
dated August 31, 2013,7 and affirmed by Resolution No. XXI-2014-3298 dated May 4, 2014, of the IBP Board
of Governors. Thus, this Court issued a Resolution9 dated January 18, 2016 referring to the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC)  Atty. Agleron's Urgent Motion for the Immediate Lifting of the Order of Suspension.

The Obc's Report and Recommendation

The OBC recommended that the merit of this case be finally resolved by this Court for the proper
determination of the order of suspension imposed on Atty. Agleron. The OBC further recommended that
Atty. Agleron's Urgent Motion for the Immediate Lifting of the Order of Suspension issued by the IBP on
August 31, 2013, be denied.

The Issue before the Court

The basic issue, in this case, is the effectivity of the order of suspension imposed on Atty. Agleron.

The Court's Ruling

The Court resolves to adopt the findings of fact of the IBP.

Here, there is no question as to whether or not the respondent lawyer misappropriated the amount of
money the complainant entrusted to him, since Atty. Agleron already admitted the same, in clear violation
of his fiduciary duty to his client. Jurisprudence is instructive that a lawyer's failure to return upon demand
the monies he/she holds for his/her client gives rise to the presumption that he/she has appropriated the
said monies for his/her own use, to the prejudice and in violation of the trust reposed in him/her by his/her
client.10

Proceeding from the premise that indeed Atty. Agleron merely wanted to help another client who is going
through financial woes, he, nevertheless, acted in disregard of his duty as a lawyer with respect to
Iluminada. Such act is a gross violation of general morality, as well as of professional ethics.11

It is of no moment as well that Atty. Agleron's property has been subjected to a levy;12 thus, his claim in his
Urgent Motion for the Immediate Lifting of the Order of Suspension13 that with such levy he has even
overpaid Iluminada, considering that the total value of his property is P2,912,000.00 is bereft of merit. Levy
is defined as the act or acts by which an officer of the law and court sets apart or appropriates a part or the
whole of the loser's (judgment debtor's) property for the purpose of eventually conducting an execution sale
to the end that the writ of execution may be satisfied, and the judgment debt, paid.14 Thus, there must be
an execution sale first before he can claim that he already complied with his legal obligation.

Further, respondent also violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) when he failed to return upon demand the amount Iluminada entrusted to him, viz.:
CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONIES AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

xxxx

Rule 16.03 — A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. x x x15

Verily, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great
fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to
account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client.16 Thus, a lawyer's failure to
return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this case, gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by
his client.17

As to the issue on when is the effectivity of the order of suspension, the OBC aptly explained in its Report
and Recommendation dated February 16, 2016, that the Court merely noted the IBP's Notice of Resolution
which suspended Atty. Agleron from the practice of law and that such act does not imply the approval of the
same. Here, this Court is yet to finally resolve first the merit of this administrative case. Thus, the effectivity
of the order of suspension has not actually commenced and it is erroneous on Atty. Agleron's part to claim in
his Motion18 dated August 6, 2015, that he has already served the one (1) year suspension from the date of
the issuance of the IBP Notice of Resolution on August 31, 2013, to August 31, 2014, is bereft of merit.

Jurisprudence is instructive that as guardian of the legal profession, this Court has the ultimate disciplinary
power over members of the Bar to ensure that the highest standards of competence, honesty and fair
dealing are maintained.19 Verily, this Court has the final say on imposition of sanctions to be imposed on
errant members of both bench and bar, this Court has the prerogative of making its own findings and
rendering judgment on the basis thereof rather than that of the IBP, OSG, or any lower court to whom an
administrative complaint has been referred to for investigation and report.20

Section 12 of Rule 139-B reads:

Section 12. Review and Decision by the Board of Governors.—

xxxx

(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should
be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the
Supreme Court for final action.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Arnulfo M. Agleron is hereby held GUILTY of Gross Misconduct in violation
of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, as well as Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with
more severely. Respondent is also ORDERED to PAY complainant the amount of Five Hundred Eighty-Two
Thousand Pesos (P582,000.00), with twelve percent (12%) interest from the date of demand until June 30,
2013 and six percent (6%)  per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment.21

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to the personal
record of respondent; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of the Court Administrator, for
circulation to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.

This Decision shall be immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.
 A.C. No. 10684, January 24, 2018

ILUMINADA D. YUZON, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARNULFO M.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

This administrative case arose from a Complaint1 filed by Iluminada Yuzon Vda. de

Complainant's Position

Iluminada alleged that sometime on December 23, 2008, she gave Atty. Agleron the amount of
Php400,000.00, and on January 12, 2009, the amount of P600,000.00 in Managers Check, or the total
amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) meant for the purchase of a house and a lot of one Alexander
Tenebroso (Alexander), situated at Mati, Davao Oriental. However, since the intended purchase did not
materialize, Iluminada demanded the return of the aforesaid amounts that she entrusted to Atty. Agleron,
which the latter failed to return. On February 24, 2009, Iluminada, through her lawyer Atty. Vivencio V.
Jumamil (Atty. Vivencio), through a letter, demanded the return of the amount of P750,000.00. On March 2,
2009, Atty. Agleron replied through a letter and explained that he already returned the amount of
P418,000.00, and that the remaining balance is only P582,000.00 which shall be paid upon payment of his
client who borrowed the said amount for his emergency operation after an accident which took place on
January 13, 2009.

Iluminada also alleged that she filed an Estafa case under Article 315, paragraph 1(B) of the Revised Penal
Code against Atty. Agleron.

Respondent's Position

Atty. Agleron, among others, claims that the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) was delivered to
him at the Office of the Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., Davao City upon the maturity of two (2) postdated
checks issued by Reverend Pastor Apollo Quiboloy (Rev. Quiboloy); that the amount of P600,000.00 was
delivered on December 15, 2008, and the other check which matured on January 15, 2009, in the amount of
P400,000.00, were all deposited with the Philippine National Bank, Mati Branch for safekeeping, while
awaiting for the finalization of the transaction with Alexander regarding the acquisition of the house subject
of Civil Case No. 2287-7-2007, then pending in the Municipal Trial Court of Mati, Davao Oriental; and that
the total amount of P438,000.00 was delivered to herein Iluminada on different occasions, as per her
request, and that the balance of P582,000.00 was never misappropriated and/or converted to the personal
use and benefit of Atty. Agleron as the said amount was borrowed for the emergency operation of a client
who, at that time has nobody to turn to for help. Thus, Atty. Agleron's infraction should not warrant the
imposition of the supreme penalty of disbarment. Atty. Agleron prayed that, if he be found guilty, the lesser
penalty of fine should be imposed considering he rendered almost fifty (50) years of service in the
government, and he is also an Officer and Member of the IBP, Davao Oriental Chapter.

Report and Recommendation

After the mandatory conference on January 17, 2012 and upon a thorough evaluation of the evidence
presented by the parties in their respective position papers, the IBP-CBD submitted its Report and
Recommendation, dated March 30, 2012, finding Atty. Agleron to have violated Section 27,2 Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court. Thus, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Agleron administratively liable and
recommended that he be meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year. This
ruling is based on Atty. Agleron's admission that he is still in possession of the amount of P582,000.00.
Thus, the Investigating Commissioner is convinced that Atty. Agleron is guilty of Gross Misconduct under
Section 27, Rule 138 for violating his duty to his client by converting and using his client's money.
Accordingly, the penalty of suspension of one (1) year from the practice of law in any court was imposed on
Atty. Agleron. The various mitigating factors: that Atty. Agleron has been a Member and Officer of the IBP
Davao Oriental Chapter; that he has been in the practice of law, as Assistant and later on as Provincial
Fiscal; and, that he was able to retire from the government service for a span of almost fifty (50)
years sans  any disciplinary records were taken into consideration. The Commissioner also recommended the
return to Iluminada of the amount of P582,000.00 with legal interest of twelve percent (12%) from May 5,
2010, with warning that a repetition of similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

In a Resolution3 dated August 31, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the aforesaid
Report and Recommendation. Atty. Agleron moved for reconsideration,4 whereas Iluminada moved for a
partial reconsideration5 explaining that the penalty meted on Atty. Agleron dilutes the very essence of the
offense charged. However, both were denied by the IBP Board of Governors through a Notice of Resolution
No. XXI-2014-3296 dated May 4, 2014.

Atty. Agleron filed with this Court an Urgent Motion for the Immediate Lifting of the Order of Suspension
dated August 31, 2013,7 and affirmed by Resolution No. XXI-2014-3298 dated May 4, 2014, of the IBP Board
of Governors. Thus, this Court issued a Resolution9 dated January 18, 2016 referring to the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC)  Atty. Agleron's Urgent Motion for the Immediate Lifting of the Order of Suspension.

The Obc's Report and Recommendation

The OBC recommended that the merit of this case be finally resolved by this Court for the proper
determination of the order of suspension imposed on Atty. Agleron. The OBC further recommended that
Atty. Agleron's Urgent Motion for the Immediate Lifting of the Order of Suspension issued by the IBP on
August 31, 2013, be denied.

The Issue before the Court

The basic issue, in this case, is the effectivity of the order of suspension imposed on Atty. Agleron.

The Court's Ruling

The Court resolves to adopt the findings of fact of the IBP.

Here, there is no question as to whether or not the respondent lawyer misappropriated the amount of
money the complainant entrusted to him, since Atty. Agleron already admitted the same, in clear violation
of his fiduciary duty to his client. Jurisprudence is instructive that a lawyer's failure to return upon demand
the monies he/she holds for his/her client gives rise to the presumption that he/she has appropriated the
said monies for his/her own use, to the prejudice and in violation of the trust reposed in him/her by his/her
client.10

Proceeding from the premise that indeed Atty. Agleron merely wanted to help another client who is going
through financial woes, he, nevertheless, acted in disregard of his duty as a lawyer with respect to
Iluminada. Such act is a gross violation of general morality, as well as of professional ethics.11

It is of no moment as well that Atty. Agleron's property has been subjected to a levy;12 thus, his claim in his
Urgent Motion for the Immediate Lifting of the Order of Suspension13 that with such levy he has even
overpaid Iluminada, considering that the total value of his property is P2,912,000.00 is bereft of merit. Levy
is defined as the act or acts by which an officer of the law and court sets apart or appropriates a part or the
whole of the loser's (judgment debtor's) property for the purpose of eventually conducting an execution sale
to the end that the writ of execution may be satisfied, and the judgment debt, paid.14 Thus, there must be
an execution sale first before he can claim that he already complied with his legal obligation.

Further, respondent also violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) when he failed to return upon demand the amount Iluminada entrusted to him, viz.:
CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONIES AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

xxxx

Rule 16.03 — A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. x x x15

Verily, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great
fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to
account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client.16 Thus, a lawyer's failure to
return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this case, gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by
his client.17

As to the issue on when is the effectivity of the order of suspension, the OBC aptly explained in its Report
and Recommendation dated February 16, 2016, that the Court merely noted the IBP's Notice of Resolution
which suspended Atty. Agleron from the practice of law and that such act does not imply the approval of the
same. Here, this Court is yet to finally resolve first the merit of this administrative case. Thus, the effectivity
of the order of suspension has not actually commenced and it is erroneous on Atty. Agleron's part to claim in
his Motion18 dated August 6, 2015, that he has already served the one (1) year suspension from the date of
the issuance of the IBP Notice of Resolution on August 31, 2013, to August 31, 2014, is bereft of merit.

Jurisprudence is instructive that as guardian of the legal profession, this Court has the ultimate disciplinary
power over members of the Bar to ensure that the highest standards of competence, honesty and fair
dealing are maintained.19 Verily, this Court has the final say on imposition of sanctions to be imposed on
errant members of both bench and bar, this Court has the prerogative of making its own findings and
rendering judgment on the basis thereof rather than that of the IBP, OSG, or any lower court to whom an
administrative complaint has been referred to for investigation and report.20

Section 12 of Rule 139-B reads:

Section 12. Review and Decision by the Board of Governors.—

xxxx

(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should
be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the
Supreme Court for final action.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Arnulfo M. Agleron is hereby held GUILTY of Gross Misconduct in violation
of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, as well as Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with
more severely. Respondent is also ORDERED to PAY complainant the amount of Five Hundred Eighty-Two
Thousand Pesos (P582,000.00), with twelve percent (12%) interest from the date of demand until June 30,
2013 and six percent (6%)  per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment.21

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to the personal
record of respondent; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of the Court Administrator, for
circulation to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.

This Decision shall be immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.