Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ATTY. PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES, Complainant, vs. Prosecutor Diosdado S. Ibañez, Respondent
ATTY. PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES, Complainant, vs. Prosecutor Diosdado S. Ibañez, Respondent
SYNOPSIS
The Court found respondent guilty of professional misconduct. The Court has
repeatedly admonished lawyers that a high sense of morality, honesty and fair
dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." It is glaringly clear that respondent's
non-remittance for over one year of the funds coming from Encarnacion Pascual
constitutes conduct in gross violation of the above canon. The belated payment
of the same SSS does not excuse his misconduct. ICacDE
Further, respondent's claim that he may not be held liable because he committed
such acts, not in his capacity as a private lawyer, but as a prosecutor is
unavailing. Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: "These
canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their
official tasks."
ACCORDINGLY, the Court REPRIMANDED the respondent. aCIHAD
SYLLABUS
RESOLUTION
ROMERO, J : p
This Court adopts the recommendation of the IBP and finds respondent guilty of
professional misconduct. While there is no doubt that payment of the contested
amount had been effected to the SSS on November 23, 1990, it is clear,
however, that the same was made only after a complaint had been filed against
respondent. Furthermore, the duties of a provincial prosecutor do not include
receiving money from persons with official transactions with his office.
This court has repeatedly admonished lawyers that a high sense of morality,
honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "[a] lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
It is glaringly clear that respondent's non-remittance for over one year of the
funds coming from Encarnacion Pascual constitutes conduct in gross violation of
the above canon. The belated payment of the same to the SSS does not excuse
his misconduct. While Pascual may not strictly be considered a client of
respondent, the rules relating to a lawyer's handling of funds of a client is
applicable. In Daroy v. Legaspi, 1 this court held that "(t)he relation between an
attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature . . . [thus] lawyers are bound
to promptly account for money or property received by them on behalf of their
clients and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct." The failure of
respondent to immediately remit the amount to the SSS gives rise to the
presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use. This is a gross
violation of general morality as well as professional ethics; it impairs public
confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. 2
Respondent's claim that he may not be held liable because he committed such
acts, not in his capacity as a private lawyer, but as a prosecutor is unavailing.
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: LLjur
LET copies of this decision be spread in his records and copies be furnished the
Department of Justice and the Office of the Bar Confidant.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Footnotes