4.penticostes v. Ibanez Digest

PENTICOSTES v. IBAÑEZ | Case No.
10
EN BANC
[A.C. CBD No. 167. March 9, 1999.]
ATTY. PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES, complainant, vs. PROSECUTOR DIOSDADO S. IBAÑEZ,
respondent.
ROMERO, J p:
TOPICS: A lawyer is expected to have a high sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing;
Lawyer and client relationship is highly fiduciary in Nature;
Applicable to lawyers in government service
FACTS:
Sometime in 1989, Encarnacion Pascual, the sister-in-law of Atty. Prudencio S. Penticostes
(herein complainant) was sued for non-remittance of SSS payments. The complaint was docketed as
I.S. 89-353 and assigned to Prosecutor Diosdado S. Ibañez (herein respondent) for preliminary
investigation. In the course of the investigation, Encarnacion Pascual gave P1,804.00 to respondent
as payment of her Social Security System (SSS) contributions in arrears. Respondent, however, did
not remit the amount to the system. The fact of non-payment was certified to by the SSS on October 2,
1989.
On November 16, 1990 or over a year later, complainant filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Tarlac a complaint for professional misconduct against Ibañez due to the latter's failure to remit the
SSS contributions of his sister-in-law. The complaint alleged that respondent's misappropriation of
Encarnacion Pascual's SSS contributions amounted to a violation of his oath as a lawyer. Seven days
later, or on November 23, 1990, respondent paid P1,804.00 to the SSS on behalf of Encarnacion
Pascual.
In the meantime, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Tarlac Chapter,
the court observing that it had no competence to receive evidence on the matter. Upon receipt of the
case, the Tarlac Chapter forwarded the same to the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline.
In his defense, respondent claimed that his act of accommodating Encarnacion Pascual's
request to make payments to the SSS did not amount to professional misconduct but was rather an act
of Christian charity. Furthermore, he claimed that the action was moot and academic, the amount of
P1,804.00 having already been paid by him to the SSS. Lastly, he disclaimed liability on the ground
that the acts complained of were not done by him in his capacity as a practicing lawyer but on account
of his office as a prosecutor.
On September 3, 1998, the Commission recommended that the respondent be reprimanded,

with a warning that the commission of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely in
the future. On November 5, 1998, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
adopted and approved its Commission's recommendation.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct.
RULING:
Yes, the 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
PENTICOSTES v. IBAÑEZ | Case No. 10
been filed against respondent. Furthermore, the duties of a provincial prosecutor do not include
receiving money from persons with official transactions with his office.
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 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, 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.
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.”
As stated by the IBP Committee that drafted the Code, "a lawyer does not shed his professional
obligations upon assuming public office. In fact, his public office should make him more sensitive to his
professional obligations because a lawyer's disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the
public's eye. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a
responsible public office.”
ACCORDINGLY, the Court REPRIMANDED the respondent with a STERN WARNING that the
commission of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely in the future.

4.penticostes v. Ibanez Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

4.penticostes v. Ibanez Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PENTICOSTES v. IBAÑEZ | Case No.

On September 3, 1998, the Commission recommended that the respondent be reprimanded,

You might also like