Today is Sunday, February 15, 2015

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.M. No. 2361 February 9, 1989
LEONILA J. LICUANAN, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. MANUEL L. MELO, respondent.
RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:
An affidavit-complaint, dated November 11, 1981, was filed by Leonila J. Licuanan with the Office of the Court
Administrator on 5 February 1982 against respondent, Atty. Manuel L. Melo, for breach of professional ethics,
alleging that respondent, who was her counsel in an ejectment case filed against her tenant, failed to remit to her
the rentals collected by respondent on different dates over a twelve-month period, much less did he report to her the
receipt of said amounts. It was only after approximately a year from actual receipt that respondent turned over his
collections to complainant after the latter, through another counsel, acquired knowledge of the payment and had
demanded the same.
In his Comment on the complaint, respondent admitted having received the payment of rentals from complainant's
tenant, Aida Pineda, as alleged in the complaint, but explained that he kept this matter from the complainant for the
purpose of surprising her with his success in collecting the rentals.
We forwarded the case to the Office of the Solicitor General, for investigation, report and recommendation. Hearings
were conducted and the parties presented their respective evidence.
After investigation, the Solicitor General submitted the following Findings and Recommendation:
Findings:
The issue to be resolved is whether there was unreasonable delay on the part of the respondent in
accounting for the funds collected by him for his former client, the complainant herein, for which
unprofessional conduct respondent should be disciplined.
A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money or malice and is bound to
conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. Under paragraph 11 of the Canons of Legal Ethics,
he is obligated to report promptly the money of client that has come to his possession and should not
commingle it with his private property or use it for his personal purpose without his client's consent viz:
Money of the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should
be reported promptly, and except with the client's know and consent should not be
commingled with his private or be used by him.
And paragraph 32 of the Canons of Legal Ethics further requires a lawyer to maintain a reputation for
honesty and fidelity to private trust:
... But above all, a lawyer will find his highest honor in a deserved reputation for fidelity to
private trust and to public duty, as an honest man and as a patriotic and loyal citizen.
In the instant case, respondent failed to observe his oath of office. It is undisputed that the relation of
attorney and client existed between Licuanan and Melo at the time the incident in question took place.
The records disclose that on August 8, 1979, respondent, as Licuanan's attorney, obtained judgment in
Licuanan's favor against Aida Pineda whereby the latter was directed by the City Court of Manila to pay
Licuanan all her monthly rentals from October, 1978 and succeeding months thereafter.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., took no part.

Footnotes
* Substantially reiterated in Rules 16.01. 16.02 and 16.03 of the (Code of Professional Responsibility
promulgated by the Supreme Court on 21 June 1988.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation