1/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 243

214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reyes vs. Maglaya

*
Adm. Case No. 2125. April 3, 1995.

ENRIQUE M. REYES, complainant, vs. ATTY.

LEOPOLDO T. MAGLAYA, respondent.

Administrative Law; Attorneys; Respondent by his admissions

has sufficiently demonstrated conduct showing his unfitness for
the confidence and trust which characterize the attorney-client
relationship.—This Court is in full accord with the findings and
recommendation of the IBP that respondent by his admissions
has sufficiently demonstrated conduct showing his unfitness for
the confidence and trust which characterize the attorney-client
relationship. By his unexplained failure to return the amount of
P1,500.00 demanded by com-plainant-client receipt of which he
had acknowledged and which he had agreed to return at the
earliest possible opportunity, he failed to live up to his duties as a
lawyer. He has in particular disregarded Canon 16, Rule 16.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that “a
lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due
or upon demand x x x.” His inexcusable act of withholding money

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

215

VOL. 243, APRIL 3, 1995 215

Reyes vs. Maglaya

belonging to his client warrants the imposition of disciplinary

sanction.
Same; Same; Respondent has not exercised the diligence
required of lawyers in the handling of their clients’ cases.—This
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001682612bd295c932e5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
1/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 243

Court also finds that respondent has not exercised the diligence
required of lawyers in the handling of their clients’ cases. He
failed to act upon complainant’s case for a period of more than
three (3) months from the time the complete file of complainant
against Angelica Offemaria was endorsed to him by Atty. Abando
of the PC-CIS. To make matters worse, respondent failed to
respond to complainant’s inquiries regarding the status of his
case, a duty which was incumbent upon him.
Same; Same; Recommendation of the IBP that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year is
approved.—Considering the foregoing, the recommendation of the
IBP that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year is approved.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

     Agustin A. Ferrer for complainant.

RESOLUTION

FELICIANO,J.:

This concerns the administrative complaint filed by

Enrique Reyes against Atty. Leopoldo Maglaya on 28
February 1980. The complaint alleged the following:

“1. That on June 8, 1979 complainant endorsed to the

respondent, all pertinent papers regarding the
anomalous and fraudulent actuations of one
Angelica Offemaria an alleged President and
General Manager of the Bicol Veterans Handicrafts
Enterprises, Inc., in which complainant was
defrauded of P31,863.30, for the purpose of filing
the necessary criminal action against said Angelica
Offemaria and for the recovery of the aforesaid
amount x x x.
2. That the respondent agreed to handle the case, and
asked for, and was given the amount of P1,500.00,
as his fee therefor.
3. That once having received the documents and the
check for P1,500.00, complainant has not heard
from respondent, although said complainant has
been calling said respondent almost daily, to
inquire

216

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001682612bd295c932e5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
1/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 243

216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reyes vs. Maglaya

as to the status of the case he has endorsed.

xxx     xxx     xxx
7. On January 18, 1980, at the request of complainant, another
letter was addressed to the respondent demanding the return of
the P1,500.00, within five (5) days from receipt thereof, but
respondent failed to return the aforesaid amount up to the
present, although he received the letter of demand on January 23,
1980.
xxx     xxx     xxx
9. That, however, due to respondent’s inaction in the case
endorsed to him by the complainant for a period of more than four
(4) months; his failure to return all the documentary evidence
entrusted to him, and his failure to return the amount he
received, the case against Offemaria has not yet been commenced
up to the present. 1
xxx     xxx     xxx”

In his unverified Answer to the complaint, respondent

Maglaya averred that at the time of the endorsement of
said case, complainant Reyes merely had xerox copies of his
documents as the originals thereof were in the possession
of one Agent Urmatan of the Criminal Investigation
Service (“CIS”) of the Philippine Constabulary 2
where
complainant first had his case investigated. As the
originals were necessary in order to file the criminal action
contemplated, respondent stated that he enlisted the help
of Atty. Abando, Chief3 of the PC-CIS legal service on the
advice of complainant. However, respondent asserted the
investigative reports which he received from Atty. Abando
were only those of complainant’s 4
relatives and not the
record of complainant himself.
Respondent Maglaya also stated that the amount of
P1,500.00 which he received from complainant, was not
only for his fees but also for expenses incurred
5
in retrieving
complainant’s records from the CIS. Furthermore,
respondent submitted that “complainant has no cause of
action, except the return of P1,500.00 which respondent
agreed to if only to show complainant that

_______________

1 Complaint, pp. 1-4; Record, pp. 1-4.

2 Answer, p. 1; Record, p. 19.
3 Id., p. 2; Record, p. 20.
4 Id., p. 3; Record, p. 21.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001682612bd295c932e5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
1/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 243

5 Id., p. 1; Record, p. 19.

217

VOL. 243, APRIL 3, 1995 217

Reyes vs. Maglaya

respondent cannot profit at the former’s

6
expense despite
time and money spent on his case.”
In his Reply, complainant Reyes insisted that the
amount of P1,500.00 was for respondent’s fee in the filing
of the criminal action against Angelica Offemaria and7 not
for expenses in retrieving the records from the CIS. He
also pointed out that respondent was not candid with this
Court when he alleged that
8
he did not receive the record or
file of the complainant. As a matter of fact, his receipt of
the complete file of complainant against Angelica
Offemaria from the PC-CIS is evidenced by a receipt in9
respondent’s own handwriting as early as 20 July 1979.
Thus, considering that respondent had with him the
complete file of complainant obtained by respondent from
the PC-CIS as early as 20 July 1979, and yet had not
instituted the desired criminal action against said Angelica
Offemaria more than three (3) months later, complainant
was impelled in a letter dated 24 October 1979 to demand
from respondent the return of the documents and the
amount of P1,500.00. Hence, complainant contended that
such inaction was indicative of 10
respondent’s negligence in
handling the case of his client.
This case was referred to the Office of the Solicitor-
General for investigation, report and recommendation.
It appears from the records that Solicitor Magdangal de
Leon conducted his investigation in the absence of
respondent because, according to a certain Mr. Ildefonso
Bongalan who appeared for the respondent on said date
and on previous dates, the respondent was sick. By reason
of respondent’s repeated absence every time this case was
set and called for hearing with due notice to him and his
repeated failure to submit a medical certificate to justify
his absences, Solicitor de Leon allowed complainant to
testify in support of his complaint in the presence of Mr.
Bongalan, subject to the cross-examination by the
respondent.

_______________

6 Id., p. 2; Record, p. 20.

7 Reply, p. 1; Record, p. 15.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001682612bd295c932e5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
1/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 243

8 Id., p. 1; Record, p. 15.

9 Id., p. 1; Record, p. 15.
10 Id., p. 2; Record, p. 16.

218

218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reyes vs. Maglaya

Subsequently, this case was transferred to the Integrated

Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”) where it was set for hearing
several times by the Board of Governors to afford
respondent Maglaya every opportunity to cross-examine
the complainant and to adduce evidence in his own defense.
However, despite having duly received notices of hearings,
respondent failed to appear at those hearings.
In an order of the IBP Board of Governors dated 16
October 1992, respondent was warned that his failure to
appear at the next scheduled hearing set on 11 December
1992, would result in this case being submitted for report
and recommendation on the basis of the evidence so far
presented by the complainant only.
On 11 December 1992, respondent’s wife asked that the
hearing be reset to 29 January 1993, because her husband
was still sick. The request was granted but respondent
nevertheless failed to appear at the requested date and
since then has not taken any move to present any evidence
on his own behalf.
In its Resolution dated 8 May 1993, the IBP Board of
Governors held that the admissions of respondent
contained in his Answer are conclusive upon him and
warrant disciplinary action against him even without
considering the unrefuted testimony of the complainant.
These admissions of respondent Maglaya include, in
particular, his admission that on 23 January 1980, he had
received complainant’s letter of 18 January 1980
demanding return of the P1,500.00 within five (5) days
from receipt of that letter. Respondent did not deny that he
has failed to return that sum of money up to the present.
Respondent had also conceded in paragraph 10 of his
Answer that “complainant has no cause of actionexcept the
return of P1,500.00 which respondent agreed to x x x.” The
IBP concluded that the admissions of respondent Maglaya
coupled with the testimony of complainant Reyes more
than substantially proved the charge against respondent. It
also found that respondent lied when he agreed to return
the P1,500.00 to the complainant, considering that up to
the present he has failed to so return the P1,500.00.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001682612bd295c932e5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
1/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 243

The IBP Board of Governors recommended that

respondent Atty. Maglaya be suspended from the practice
of law for a period of one (1) year.
This Court is in full accord with the findings and
recommendation of the IBP that respondent by his
admissions has suffi-

219

VOL. 243, APRIL 3, 1995 219

Reyes vs. Maglaya

ciently demonstrated conduct showing his unfitness for the

confidence and trust which characterize the attorney-client
relationship. By his unexplained failure to return the
amount of P1,500.00 demanded by complainant-client
receipt of which he had acknowledged and which he had
agreed to return at the earliest possible opportunity, he
failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer. He has in
particular disregarded Canon 16, Rule 16.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which requires that “a lawyer
shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due
or upon demand x x x.” His inexcusable act of withholding
money belonging to his client warrants the imposition of
disciplinary sanction.
This Court also finds that respondent has not exercised
the diligence required of lawyers in the handling of their
clients’ cases. He failed to act upon complainant’s case for a
period of more than three (3) months from the time the
complete file of complainant against Angelica Offemaria
was endorsed to him by Atty. Abando of the PC-CIS. To
make matters worse, respondent failed to respond to
complainant’s inquiries regarding the status of his case, a
duty which was incumbent upon him.
Considering the foregoing, the recommendation of the
IBP that respondent be suspended from the practice of law
for a period of one (1) year is approved.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby SUSPENDS ATTY.
LEOPOLDO T. MAGLAYA from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year from notice hereof, with a WARNING
that a repetition of the same or any other misconduct will
be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be spread on the personal
records of the respondent in the Bar Confidant’s Office,
Supreme Court of the Philippines, with copies thereof
furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and duly
circularized to all courts.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001682612bd295c932e5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
1/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 243

     Romero, Melo, Vitug and Francisco, JJ., concur.

Respondent Leopoldo Maglaya suspended from the

practice of law for one (1) year with warning against
repetition of similar act.
220

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dulay vs. Court of Appeals

Note.—The Supreme Court may suspend or disbar a

lawyer whose acts show his unfitness to continue as a
member of the Bar. (Valencia vs. Cabanting, 196 SCRA 302
[1991])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001682612bd295c932e5d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7