A.C. No. 12044. July 23, 2018.

MARTIN J. SIOSON, complainant, vs. ATTY. DIONISIO B.

APOYA, JR., respondent.

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; The Supreme Court (SC) agrees with

the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors that
Atty. Apoya, Jr.Ês refusal to return SiosonÊs money upon demand and
his failure to respond to SiosonÊs calls, text messages and letters
asking for a status update on the case filed before the Department of
Justice (DOJ) reveal Atty. Apoya, Jr.Ês failure to live up to his duties
as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of his oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).·The Court agrees with
the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Apoya, Jr.Ês refusal to return
SiosonÊs money upon demand and his failure to respond to SiosonÊs
calls, text messages and letters asking for a status update on the
case filed before the DOJ reveal Atty. Apoya, Jr.Ês failure to live up
to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of his
oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The acts
committed by Atty. Apoya, Jr. thus fall squarely within the
prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 16.01 of Canon 16, and
Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
Same; Same; Nothing should be done by any member of the
legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the
confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the
profession.·Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every
lawyer to laws and legal processes. A lawyer, to the best of his
ability, is expected to respect and abide by the law, and thus, avoid
any act or omission that is contrary to the same. A lawyerÊs
personal deference to the law not only speaks of his character but it
also inspires the public to likewise respect and obey the law. Rule
1.01, on the other hand, states the norm of conduct to be observed
by all lawyers. Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited
or unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards
the law is unlawful. To this end, nothing should be done by any
member of the legal fraternity

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

186

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sioson vs. Apoya, Jr.

which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the

public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.
Same; Same; Where a client gives money to his lawyer for a
specific purpose, such as to file an action, appeal an adverse
judgment, consummate a settlement, or pay the purchase price of a
parcel of land, the lawyer should, upon failure to take such step and
spend the money for it, immediately return the money to his client.·
Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, on
the other hand, requires the lawyer to account for all money or
property collected or received for or from his client. Where a client
gives money to his lawyer for a specific purpose, such as to file an
action, appeal an adverse judgment, consummate a settlement, or
pay the purchase price of a parcel of land, the lawyer should, upon
failure to take such step and spend the money for it, immediately
return the money to his client. In Rollon v. Naraval, 452 SCRA 675
(2005), the Court suspended Atty. Naraval from the practice of law
for two (2) years for failing to render any legal service even after
receiving money from the complainant and for failing to return the
money and documents he received.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

CAGUIOA, J.:

Before this Court is a complaint for disbarment1 filed by

complainant Martin J. Sioson (Sioson) against respondent
Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. (Atty. Apoya, Jr.).
 The Factual Antecedents

Sioson alleged that on November 27, 2013, his friend,

Allan C. Torregosa, brought Atty. Apoya, Jr. to his office to
recommend the latter to handle SiosonÊs complaint for
Qualified

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 2-12.

187

VOL. 872, JULY 23, 2018 187

Sioson vs. Apoya, Jr.

Theft pending before the Department of Justice (DOJ). Sioson

immediately engaged the services of Atty. Apoya, Jr. in handling the
petition for review he had earlier filed before the DOJ, in connection
with his complaint for Qualified Theft titled, „Martin Jimenez
Sioson and Mauro Jimenez Sioson, Jr. v. Annaliza Sioson, et al.‰
docketed as NPS Docket No. XV-10INV-12E-00273.
Atty. Apoya, Jr. required the payment of an acceptance
fee of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), appearance fee of
Two Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P2,500.00) per hearing
and fifteen percent (15%) of whatever amount collected
from the case as success fee. Atty. Apoya, Jr. also told
Sioson that he would submit a manifestation before the
DOJ to correct the allegations stated in SiosonÊs petition.
Sioson immediately issued Banco De Oro Check No.
0289017 to pay Atty. Apoya, Jr. P10,000.00 as acceptance
fee. Atty. Apoya, Jr. then deposited the said check to his
Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) Account No. 3503-
0571-08, as evidenced by the machine copy of the dorsal
portion of the subject check.
On December 6, 2013, Sioson sent a text message to
Atty. Apoya, Jr. inquiring on the status of his case. Atty.
Apoya, Jr. replied that he would file first a Notice of Entry
of Appearance prior to the filing of the manifestation he
and Sioson discussed on November 27, 2013.
On December 11, 2013, Sioson sent another text
message to Atty. Apoya, Jr., requesting for a status update
on the case. Atty. Apoya, Jr. told Sioson to wait for the
order of the DOJ notifying the latter of the Notice of Entry
of Appearance he had filed.
On February 20, 2014, Sioson went to the DOJ to follow
up on his case. He discovered that Atty. Apoya, Jr. had not
filed an Entry of Appearance in relation to his case. Sioson
called Atty. Apoya, Jr. but the latterÊs phone could not be
reached.

188

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sioson vs. Apoya, Jr.

Sioson averred that Atty. Apoya, Jr. thereafter continued to

ignore his text messages.
In a letter dated February 20, 2014, Sioson requested
Atty. Apoya, Jr. for a status update on his petition for
review. The said February 20, 2014 letter was received by a
certain Juvy Paghel on February 21, 2014 based on the
certification issued by the Philippine Postal Corporation.2
Atty. Apoya, Jr. did not respond to the said letter.
Sioson wrote another letter to Atty. Apoya, Jr., which
was received by Lolita Apoya, the mother of Atty. Apoya,
Jr. In the said letter dated March 7, 2014, Sioson
demanded for Atty. Apoya, Jr. to return the P10,000.00 he
had given the latter as acceptance fee, to wit:

On February 20, 2014 at around 10 a.m., I went personally

to Docket Section of the Department of Justice to check the
status of my case entitled Martin Jimenez Sioson, [et al.] v.
Analiza Sioson, [et al.] docketed as XV-10-INV-12E-00273.
Upon inquiry with the said unit, I was surprised to know that
there was no pleading filed by you before the said office, not
even a Notice of Entry of Appearance. I immediately texted
you and you did not even bothered (sic) to reply. As far as I
can remember, when you accepted my case on November 27,
2013, you informed me that you will file a manifestation
before the Honorable Office, however, up to this date, there
was none.
With this, I would like to ask for the return of the amount
of Pesos: Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) which you asked from
me as an acceptance fee and received by you on the same
 date, five (5) days upon receipt hereof. Likewise, I would like
to ask for you to return all the documents I sent to you
pertaining to my case so I could look for another Legal
Counsel, to handle my case efficiently and effectively.
Otherwise, I will be constrained to file a Disbarment Case
against you before the Integrated Bar

_______________

2 Id., at p. 8.

189

VOL. 872, JULY 23, 2018 189

Sioson vs. Apoya, Jr.

of the Philippines for violation of „Canon Code‰ specifically Canons

16 and 18.3

On April 4, 2014, Sioson filed a Verified Complaint

before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (CBD-IBP), praying that Atty.
Apoya, Jr. be disciplined and be disbarred from the practice
of law.
The CBD-IBP issued an Order requiring Atty. Apoya, Jr.
to submit a duly verified Answer, within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the order.4
In his Answer dated May 21, 2014, Atty. Apoya, Jr.
vehemently denied that Sioson was his client. He alleged
that he does not know Sioson personally, to wit:

2. That there is no Attorney Client relationship, exist (sic)

between the respondent and the complainant in this
case. Respondent came to surprised when he received
an order requiring him to file an answer with respect
to the complaint of herein alleged complainant.
3. That sometimes on March 7, 2014 the said Martin J.
Sioson had sent a letter address[ed] to the respondent asking
for the return of the documents and money in the amount of
P10,000.00 which he allegedly stated in his letter that
respondent received from him as Acceptance fee to handled
his case Qualified Theft against Analiza Sioson. That in his
 letter there is also a threat that if respondent refused to
return the documents and money he will be constrained to file
a disbarment case against the respondent. Respondent
respectfully stressed that he never had an occasion to
met herein complainant. Respondent never received
any amount from the complainant representing as
acceptance fee. Respondent likewise never received
any documents (sic) from the complainant pertaining
to the

_______________

3 Id., at p. 10.
4 Id., at p. 13.

190

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sioson vs. Apoya, Jr.

case Qualified Theft he mentioned in his letter. That there is

absolutely no attorney-client relationship exist (sic) between the
respondent and the complainant in this case. Thus, respondent
felt a (sic) coercion and threat with respect to the said letter came
from the complainant for compelling respondent to return
something which he did not received (sic) from the complainant
and threatening to harm and or (sic) filing an administrative
against the respondent. Consequently, respondent filed Criminal
Complaint (sic) GRAVE THREATS and GRAVE COERCION
against the complainant before the office of the City Prosecutor of
Caloocan City.5

On July 9, 2014, the CBD-IBP issued a Notice setting

the mandatory conference/hearing of the subject complaint
on August 13, 2014.6
On August 11, 2014, Sioson filed his Mandatory
Conference Brief.7
On August 13, 2014, Atty. Apoya, Jr. filed his Mandatory
Conference Brief.8 The mandatory conference of the case
held on the same day was re​scheduled to September 17,
2014 after Atty. Apoya, Jr. failed to attend the same.9
 On September 17, 2014, the mandatory conference was
again re​scheduled to October 22, 2014 after Atty. Apoya, Jr.
filed an Urgent Motion to Cancel Hearing10 due to a
scheduled court hearing he had to attend in San Fernando
City, La Union.
In an Order dated October 22, 2014, Investigating commissioner
Erwin L. Aguilera gave Sioson and Atty. Apoya, Jr. a

_______________

5 Id., at p. 15.
6 Id., at p. 34.
7 Id., at pp. 41-44.
8 Id., at pp. 36-39.
9 Id., at p. 40.
10 Id., at pp. 48-50.

191

VOL. 872, JULY 23, 2018 191

Sioson vs. Apoya, Jr.

period of ten (10) days from their receipt of the subject

Order to submit their respective verified position papers.11
In November, 2014, Sioson and Atty. Apoya, Jr. filed
their respective verified position papers.12
After due proceedings, Investigating Commissioner
Erwin L. Aguilera rendered a Report and
13
Recommendation on November 26, 2014, recommending
that Atty. Apoya, Jr. be suspended from the practice of law
for a period of six (6) months and that he be ordered to
return the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to
Sioson, to wit:

Thus, we find the confluence of the evidence submitted by the

complainant to have clearly, convincingly and satisfactorily shown
that indeed the respondent has authored this reprehensible act.
Respondent committed deceitful and dishonest acts by
misrepresenting that he had already filed a Notice of Appearance
on behalf of the Petition for Review and pocketing the amount of
P10,000.00.
Respondent even went to the extent of denying that the
 meat of the allegation is baseless and no such evidence could
prove of the existence of the valued [lawyer-client]
relationship. After he was asked to return the documents and
money, he made himself scarce. He ignored all
communications sent to him by the complainant. After the
disbarment complaint was filed, he was firm and compose
thereafter he file his answer. He totally disregarded the bone
of contention and faced everything through the assertion of
complete denial.14

Commissioner Aguilera did not give credence to Atty.

Apoya, Jr.Ês defense of denial:

_______________

11 Id., at p. 55.
12 Id., at pp. 56-72, 73-102.
13 Id., at pp. 167-177.
14 Id., at p. 171.

192

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sioson vs. Apoya, Jr.

Moreover, the undersigned cannot believe that

complainant merely made up a case of evasion of clear duty
by respondent to hold the latter liable for professional
misconduct. On the other hand, respondent could have easily
submitted the affidavits of his mother Lolita Apoya and/or
that of Juvy Paghel to controvert the complainantÊs claims
had he not taken his professional engagement seriously.15

The dispositive portion of Commissioner AguileraÊs

Report and Recommendation reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. is

ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
six (6) months. And is ordered to return the amount of
P10,000.00 paid by to (sic) the complaint (sic).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.16
 On February 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors
passed a Resolution17 adopting and approving the findings
and recommendation of Investigating Commissioner
Aguilera, thus:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby

ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner in the above entitled case, herein
made part of this Resolution as Annex „A,‰ and finding the
recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record
and applicable laws, and violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Rule
16.03, Canon 18 and Rule 18.03, Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months and Ordered to Return the amount of Ten
Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos to Complainant.18

_______________

15 Id., at p. 172.
16 Id., at p. 177.
17 Id., at p. 104.
18 Id.

193

VOL. 872, JULY 23, 2018 193

Sioson vs. Apoya, Jr.

Atty. Apoya, Jr. filed a Motion for Reconsideration19

asserting that the February 20, 2015 Resolution of the IBP
Board of Governors was based on a misapprehension of
facts. Atty. Apoya, Jr. insisted that he never met Sioson on
November 27, 2013, the day Sioson supposedly engaged his
services. He averred that he never ignored the February
20, 2014 and March 7, 2014 letters from Sioson. In fact, he
immediately filed criminal cases for Grave Threats and
Grave Coercion against Sioson because of the latterÊs
scheme to use the instant administrative case as leverage
for the criminal cases respondent Apoya, Jr. filed against
Sioson.
 On August 26, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors passed
a Resolution20 denying respondent Atty. Apoya, Jr.Ês Motion
for Reconsideration, there being no new reason and/or new
argument adduced to reverse the previous findings and
decision of the Board of Governors.
Atty. Apoya, Jr. filed a second Motion for
Reconsideration, 21 insisting that the pieces of documentary
evidence submitted by Sioson are not proof and do not show the
existence of attorney-client relationship between him and Sioson.
On March 1, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors passed a
Resolution22 denying respondent Atty. Apoya, Jr.Ês second Motion
for Reconsideration on the ground that the rules do not allow the
filing of a second motion for reconsideration and the same second
Motion for Reconsideration is evidently dilatory.

The CourtÊs Ruling

After a judicious examination of the records and

submission of the parties, the Court upholds the findings
and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.

_______________

19 Id., at pp. 155-159.

20 Id., at pp. 163-164.
21 Id., at pp. 145-148.
22 Id., at pp. 161-162.

194

194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sioson vs. Apoya, Jr.

The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that

Atty. Apoya, Jr.Ês refusal to return SiosonÊs money upon
demand and his failure to respond to SiosonÊs calls, text
messages and letters asking for a status update on the case
filed before the DOJ reveal Atty. Apoya, Jr.Ês failure to live
up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the
strictures of his oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
The acts committed by Atty. Apoya, Jr. thus fall squarely
within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 16.01
of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which
provides:

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE

CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT
WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
xxxx
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time
to the clientÊs request for information.

Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer

to laws and legal processes. A lawyer, to the best of his
ability, is

195

VOL. 872, JULY 23, 2018 195

Sioson vs. Apoya, Jr.

expected to respect and abide by the law, and thus, avoid

any act or omission that is contrary to the same.23 A
lawyerÊs personal deference to the law not only speaks of
his character but it also inspires the public to likewise
respect and obey the law.24 Rule 1.01, on the other hand,
states the norm of conduct to be observed by all lawyers.
Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or
unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or
disregards the law is unlawful.25 To this end, nothing
should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which
might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the
public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the
profession.26
Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, on the other hand, requires the lawyer to
account for all money or property collected or received for
or from his client. Where a client gives money to his lawyer
for a specific purpose, such as to file an action, appeal an
adverse judgment, consummate a settlement, or pay the
purchase price of a parcel of land, the lawyer should, upon
failure to take such step and spend the money for it,
immediately return the money to his client.27
In Rollon v. Naraval,28 the Court suspended Atty.
Naraval from the practice of law for two (2) years for failing
to render any legal service even after receiving money from
the complainant and for failing to return the money and
documents he received.

_______________

23 Maniquiz v. Emelo, A.C. No. 8968, September 26, 2017, 840 SCRA
532, 538.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Ducat, Jr. v. Villalon, Jr., 392 Phil. 394, 402; 337 SCRA 622, 628
(2000).
27 Schulz v. Flores, 462 Phil. 601, 612; 417 SCRA 159, 167 (2003).
28 493 Phil. 24; 452 SCRA 675 (2005).

196

196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sioson vs. Apoya, Jr.

In Small v. Banares,29 the Court suspended Atty.

Banares from the practice of law for two (2) years for
failing to file a case for which the amount of P80,000.00
was given to him by his client. He also failed to update his
client on the status of the case and to return the said
amount upon demand of his client.
 In Meneses v. Macalino,30 the Court meted out the
penalty of one-year suspension to Atty. Macalino for his
unjustified withholding of money belonging to his client.
The Investigating Commissioner correctly observed that Atty.
Apoya, Jr.Ês defense of denial of the existence of a lawyer-client
relationship is flimsy and self-serving. The Court agrees that Atty.
Apoya, Jr. could have easily submitted the affidavits of his mother
Lolita Apoya and/or that of Juvy Paghel to controvert SiosonÊs
claims.
Here, the circumstances of this case indubitably show
that after receiving the amount of P10,000.00 as
acceptance fee, Atty. Apoya, Jr. failed to render any legal
service in relation to the case of Sioson. Despite SiosonÊs
repeated follow-ups, Atty. Apoya, Jr. unjustifiably failed to
update Sioson of the status of the case and to return to him
the documents the latter gave him in connection with the
case pending before the DOJ.
All told, the Court finds that the evidence adduced is
sufficient to support the allegations against Atty. Apoya, Jr.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya,
Jr. LIABLE for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 16,
Rule 16.01, and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and he is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six
(6) months effective immediately upon receipt of this
Decision. Atty. Apoya, Jr. is also ordered to return the
amount of Ten

_______________

29 545 Phil. 226; 516 SCRA 323 (2007).

30 518 Phil. 378; 483 SCRA 212 (2006).

197

VOL. 872, JULY 23, 2018 197

Sioson vs. Apoya, Jr.

Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to complainant Martin J.

Sioson within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Decision.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the
Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondentÊs personal
 record as attorney. Further, let copies of this Decision be
furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the
Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to
circulate them to all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio** (Chairperson), Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe and

Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.

Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. suspended from practice of

law for six (6) months for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01,
Canon 16, Rule 16.01, and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and Rule
18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Notes.·Respondent lawyerÊs refusal to account for the

funds given to him, especially his refusal to return the
amount paid in excess of what was required as docket fees,
clearly violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. (Malangas vs. Zaide, 791
SCRA 518 [2016])
When a lawyer receives money from his client for a
particular purpose and the lawyer does not use the money
for such purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the
money to his client. (Balingit vs. Cervantes, 808 SCRA 1
[2016])

··o0o··

_______________

** Designated Senior Associate Justice.

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.