THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 6903. April 16, 2012.]

SUZETTE DEL MUNDO , complainant, vs . ATTY. ARNEL C.

CAPISTRANO , respondent.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE , J : p

Before the Court is an administrative complaint 1 for disbarment led by

complainant Suzette Del Mundo (Suzette) charging respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano
(Atty. Capistrano) of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Facts
On January 8, 2005, Suzette and her friend Ricky S. Tuparan (Tuparan) engaged the
legal services of Atty. Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of nullity of their
respective marriages allegedly for a fee of PhP140,000.00 each. On the same date, a
Special Retainer Agreement 2 was entered into by and between Suzette and Atty.
Capistrano which required an acceptance fee of PhP30,000.00, appearance fee of
PhP2,500.00 per hearing and another PhP2,500.00 per pleading. In addition, Atty.
Capistrano allegedly advised her to prepare amounts for the following expenses:
PhP11,000.00Filing fee
PhP5,000.00Summons
PhP15,000.00Fiscal
PhP30,000.00Psychiatrist
PhP15,000.00Commissioner

In accordance with their agreement, Suzette gave Atty. Capistrano the total amount
of PhP78,500.00, to wit: CAcIES

January 8, 2005PhP30,000.00Acceptance fee

January 15, 2005PhP11,000.00Filing fee
February 3, 2005PhP5,000.00Filing fee
May 4, 2005PhP2,500.00Filing fee
June 8, 2005PhP30,000.00Filing fee

For every payment that Suzette made, she would inquire from Atty. Capistrano on
the status of her case. In response, the latter made her believe that the two cases were
already filed before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City and awaiting notice of hearing.
Sometime in July 2005, when she could hardly reach Atty. Capistrano, she veri ed her case
from the Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered that while the case of Tuparan had
been filed on January 27, 2005, no petition has yet been filed for her.
Hence, Suzette called for a conference, which was set on July 28, 2005, where she
demanded the refund of the total amount of PhP78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano instead
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 offered to return the amount of PhP63,000.00 on staggered basis claiming to have
incurred expenses in the ling of Tuparan's case, to which she agreed. On the same
occasion, Atty. Capistrano handed to her copies of her un led petition, 3 Tuparan's petition
4 and his Withdrawal of Appearance 5 in Tuparan's case with instructions to le them in
court, as well as a list 6 containing the expenses he incurred and the schedule of payment
of the amount of PhP63,000.00, as follows:
PhP20,000.00August 15, 2005
PhP20,000.00August 29, 2005
PhP23,000.00September 15, 2005

However, Atty. Capistrano only returned the amount of PhP5,000.00 on August 15,
2005 and thereafter, refused to communicate with her, prompting the institution of this
administrative complaint on September 7, 2005.
In his Comment/Answer 7 dated November 14, 2005, Atty. Capistrano
acknowledged receipt of the amount of PhP78,500.00 from Suzette and his undertaking to
return the agreed sum of PhP63,000.00. He also admitted responsibility for his failure to
le Suzette's petition and cited as justi cation his heavy workload and busy schedule as
then City Legal O cer of Manila and lack of available funds to immediately refund the
money received.
In the Resolution 8 dated January 18, 2006, the Court resolved to refer the case to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
The Action and Recommendation of the IBP
For failure of respondent Atty. Capistrano to appear at the mandatory conference
set by Commissioner Lolita A. Quisumbing of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-
CBD), the conference was terminated without any admissions and stipulations of facts and
the parties were ordered to le their respective position papers to which only Atty.
Capistrano complied.
In the Report and Recommendation 9 dated April 11, 2007, the IBP-CBD, through
Commissioner Quisumbing, found that Atty. Capistrano had neglected his client's interest
by his failure to inform Suzette of the status of her case and to le the agreed petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage. It also concluded that his inability to refund the amount
he had promised Suzette showed de ciency in his moral character, honesty, probity and
good demeanor. Hence, he was held guilty of violating Rule 18.03, and Rule 18.04, Canon
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended the penalty of
suspension for two years from the practice of law.
On September 19, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
report and recommendation of Commissioner Quisumbing through Resolution No. XVIII-
2007-98 10 with modi cation ordering the return of the sum of PhP140,000.00 attorney's
fees to Suzette. SDHITE

However, upon Atty. Capistrano's timely motion for reconsideration, the IBP Board
of Governors passed Resolution No. XIX-2011-263 11 on May 14, 2011 reducing the
penalty of suspension from two years to one year, to wit:
RESOLVED to PARTIALLY GRANT Respondent's Motion for
Reconsideration, and unanimously MODIFY as it is hereby MODIFIED Resolution
No. XVIII-2007-98 dated 19 September 2007 and REDUCED the penalty against
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano to SUSPENSION from the practice of law for one (1)
year and Ordered to Return the amount of One Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos
(P140,000.00) to complainant with thirty (30) days from receipt of notice.
The Issue
The sole issue before the Court is whether Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Ruling of the Court
After a careful perusal of the records, the Court concurs with the ndings and
recommendation of the IBP-CBD but takes exception to the amount of PhP140,000.00
recommended to be returned to Suzette.
Indisputably, Atty. Capistrano committed acts in violation of his sworn duty as a
member of the bar. In his Manifestation and Petition for Review, 12 he himself admitted
liability for his failure to act on Suzette's case as well as to account and return the funds
she entrusted to him. He only pleaded for the mitigation of his penalty citing the lack of
intention to breach his lawyer's oath; that this is his rst offense; and that his profession is
the only means of his and his family's livelihood. He also prayed that the adjudged amount
of PhP140,000.00 be reduced to PhP73,500.00 representing the amount of PhP78,500.00
he received less his payment of the sum of PhP5,000.00. Consequently, Commissioner
Quisumbing and the IBP-CBD Board of Governors correctly recommended the appropriate
penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law for violating the pertinent
provisions of the Canons of Professional Responsibility, thus: ECDaAc

CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS 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.

RULE 16.02 — A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and
apart from his own and those of others kept by him.

xxx xxx xxx

CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE
AND DILIGENCE.

xxx xxx xxx

RULE 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
RULE 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.

Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence in protecting the latter's rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and
attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust
reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to
the legal profession, the courts and society. 13 His workload does not justify neglect in
handling one's case because it is settled that a lawyer must only accept cases as much as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 he can efficiently handle. 14 HTCESI

Moreover, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his client that may come to
his possession. As trustee of such funds, he is bound to keep them separate and apart
from his own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a speci c purpose such as for the ling and
processing of a case if not utilized, must be returned immediately upon demand. Failure to
return gives rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated it in violation of the trust
reposed on him. And the conversion of funds entrusted to him constitutes gross violation
of professional ethics and betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. 15
To stress, the practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high
standards of legal pro ciency 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. 16 Falling short of this standard, the Court will not
hesitate to discipline an erring lawyer by imposing an appropriate penalty based on the
exercise of sound judicial discretion in consideration of the surrounding facts. 1 7
With the foregoing disquisition and Atty. Capistrano's admission of his fault and
negligence, the Court nds the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law, as
recommended by the IBP-CBD, su cient sanction for his violation. However, the Court
nds proper to modify the amount to be returned to Suzette from PhP140,000.00 to
PhP73,500.00.
WHEREFORE , respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, having clearly violated Canons
16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be
dealt with more severely. He is ORDERED to return to Suzette Del Mundo the full amount
of PhP73,500.00 within 30 days from notice hereof and DIRECTED to submit to the Court
proof of such payment.
Let copies of this Decision be entered in the personal record of respondent as a
member of the Philippine Bar and furnished the O ce of the Bar Con dant, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
country.
SO ORDERED .
Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Abad and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 1-5.

2.Id. at 6.

3.Id. at 20-24.
4.Id. at 13-19.

5.Id. at 26.
6.Id. at 25.
7.Id. at 28-34.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 8.Id. at 36.
9.Id. at 117-121.
10.Id. at 116.

11.Id. at 115.
12.Id. at 122-131.

13.Valeriana Dalisay v. Atty. Melanio Mauricio Jr., A.C. No. 5655, April 22, 2005, 456 SCRA 508,
514.

14.Dolores Pariñas v. Atty. Oscar Paguinto, A.C. No. 6297, July 13, 2004, 434 SCRA 179.
15.Ruby Mae Barnachea v. Atty. Edwin T. Quiocho, A.C. No. 5925, March 11, 2003, 399 SCRA 1,
8.

16.Nemesio Floran and Caridad Floran v. Atty. Roy Prule Ediza, A.C. No. 5325, October 19, 2011.
17.Ruthie Lim-Santiago v. Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio, A.C. No. 6705, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 10,
25.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com