Case X-A (Angeles vs. Uy)

[A.C. No. 5019.
April 6, 2000]
Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES, complainant, vs. Atty. THOMAS C. UY JR., respondent. Spped jo
Lawyers must promptly account for money or property they receive on behalf of their clients. Failure to do so constitutes professional
Misconduct and justifies the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
FACTS: Judge Angeles of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City (Branch 121) charged Atty. Thomas C. Uy Jr. with violation of
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In a criminal case, presided by the complainant Judge, entitled 'People of the
Philippines vs. Norma Trajano, et., al', the respondent, was engaged as private prosecutor. At the outset Norma Trajano, accused in
said criminal case, expressed her desire and offered to settle the civil aspect of the criminal case against her to which the private
complainant Primitiva Del Rosario acceded.
When the case was called for the second time , Norma Trajano manifested that she had already settled in full the civil aspect of the
criminal case pending, in the total amount of thirty six thousand five hundred Pesos (P36,500.00) . She further alleged that she paid
P20,000.00 directly to the private complainant and the balance of P16,500.00 was delivered to Atty. Thomas C. Uy, Jr., the lawyer of
the private complainant and accordingly produced in open court the receipt for such payment signed by no less than the aforesaid
lawyer.. However, Del Rosario manifested that she did not receive the amount of sixteen thousand five hundred (P16,500.00) pesos
which was paid to his lawyer, thereby constraining this court to direct Atty. Thomas C. Uy to turn over the money to the private
complainant which he received in trust for his client.
Atty. Uy however argued that his client did not like to accept the money but the assertion of the lawyer was belied by his own client, ,
who manifested in open court her willingness to accept the money. The Court again directed Atty. Uy to produce the money but the
latter argued that he kept it in his office. Consequently, the Court suspended the proceedings to enable Atty. Uy to get the money from
his law office which is located only at the second floor of the same building where this court is located. Unfortunately, Atty. Uy did not
show up anymore and not even his shadow appeared in Court.
Del Rosario received the money on February 12, 1999 after Judge Angeles issued the Order on February 10, 1999.
ISSUE: WON the lawyer may still be administratively charged after having turned over the money to the client
RULING: Yes. The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary; it requires a high degree of fidelity and good faith. It is
designed "to remove all such temptation and to prevent everything of that kind from being done for the protection of the client."
Thus, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession." Furthermore, Rule 16.01 of the Code also states that "a lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the client." The Canons of Professional Ethics is even more explicit:
"The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the
confidence reposed in him by his client. Sup rema
"Money of the client collected for the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported
and accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by him."[6]
In the present case, it is clear that respondent failed to promptly report and account for the P16,500 he had received from Norma
Trajano on behalf of his client, Primitiva Del Rosario. Although the amount had been entrusted to respondent on December 14, 1998,
his client revealed during the February 10, 1999 hearing that she had not yet received it. Worse, she did not even know where it was.
Verily, the question is not necessarily whether the rights of the clients have been prejudiced, but whether the lawyer has adhered to the
ethical standards of the bar.[11] In this case, respondent has not done so.
In this light, the Court must stress that it has the duty to look into dealings between attorneys and their clients and to guard the latter
from any undue consequences resulting from a situation in which they may stand unequal.[13] The present situation calls for the
exercise of this duty. For misappropriating and failing to promptly report and deliver money they received on behalf of their clients,
some lawyers have been disbarred[14] and others have been suspended for six months.[15] In the present case, the records merely show
that respondent did not promptly report that he received money on behalf of his client. There is no clear evidence of misappropriation.
Under the circumstances, we rule that he should be suspended for one month.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Thomas C. Uy Jr .is hereby SUSPENDED for one month. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts
will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.

Case X-A (Angeles vs. Uy)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case X-A (Angeles vs. Uy)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Case X-A (Angeles vs. Uy)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[A.C. No. 5019.

You might also like