Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 Licuanan vs. Melo

    Uploaded by

    Jem
    152 views2 pages
    Leonila J. Licuanan filed a complaint against attorney Manuel Melo for failing to remit rentals he collected on her behalf over a twelve-month period in an ejectment case. Melo did not report receiving the funds until Licuanan's new attorney contacted him after a year. The Office of the Solicitor General recommended suspending Melo for at least one year. The Court found Melo kept the funds, depriving his client of their use and information about the funds despite inquiries. This breach of trust warranted disbarring Melo from practicing law due to deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Leonila J. Licuanan filed a complaint against attorney Manuel Melo for failing to remit rentals he collected on her behalf over a twelve-month period in an ejectment case. Melo did not report receiving the funds until Licuanan's new attorney contacted him after a year. The Office of the Solicitor General recommended suspending Melo for at least one year. The Court found Melo kept the funds, depriving his client of their use and information about the funds despite inquiries. This breach of trust warranted disbarring Melo from practicing law due to deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    152 views2 pages

    47 Licuanan vs. Melo

    Uploaded by

    Jem
    Leonila J. Licuanan filed a complaint against attorney Manuel Melo for failing to remit rentals he collected on her behalf over a twelve-month period in an ejectment case. Melo did not report receiving the funds until Licuanan's new attorney contacted him after a year. The Office of the Solicitor General recommended suspending Melo for at least one year. The Court found Melo kept the funds, depriving his client of their use and information about the funds despite inquiries. This breach of trust warranted disbarring Melo from practicing law due to deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Licuanan vs.

    Melo
    Adm. Case No. 2361. February 9, 1989
    PER CURIAM:
    Facts:
    Leonila J. Licuanan, complainant, filed an affidavit-complaint against Atty Manuel Melo,
    respondent, for breach of professional ethics. Respondent was complainant’s counsel in an
    ejectment case against Aida Pineda, and he failed to remit to her the rentals collected by
    respondent on different dates over a twelve-month period, much less did he report to her the
    receipt of said amounts. It was only after approximately a year from actual receipt that
    respondent turned over his collections to complainant after the latter, through Atty. Ponciano B.
    Jacinto, wrote respondent a letter on May 4, 1981, advising him to surrender the money to
    complainant that he accounted for it. In his defense, he kept this matter from the complainant for
    the purpose of surprising her with his success in collecting the rentals. The Office of the Solicitor
    General recommend that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of not
    less than one (1) year,
    Issue:
    Whether there was unreasonable delay on the part of the respondent in accounting for the
    funds collected by him for his former client, the complainant herein, for which unprofessional
    conduct respondent should be disciplined?
    Rule of law:

    Application:
    We find the foregoing findings well considered and adopt the same but differ with the
    recommendation. The actuations of respondent in retaining for his personal benefit over a one-
    year period, the amount of P5,220.00 received by him on behalf of his client, the complainant
    herein, depriving her of its use, and withholding information on the same despite inquiries made
    by her, is glaringly a breach of the Lawyer’s Oath to which he swore observance, and an evident
    transgression of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
    Indeed, by his professional misconduct, respondent has breached the trust reposed in him by
    his client. He has shown himself unfit for the confidence and trust which should characterize an
    attorney-client relationship and the practice of law. By reason thereof complainant was
    compelled to file a groundless suit against her tenant for non-payment of rentals thereby
    exposing her to jeopardy by becoming a defendant in a damage suit filed by said tenant against
    her. By force of circumstances, complainant was further compelled to engage the services of
    another counsel in order to recover the amount rightfully due her but which respondent had
    unjustifiedly withheld from her. Respondent’s unprofessional actuations considered, we are
    constrained to find him guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct in office. He has
    displayed lack of honesty and good moral character. He has violated his oath not to delay any
    man for money or malice, besmirched the name of an honorable profession and has proven
    himself unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court. He deserves the
    severest punishment.
    Conclusion:
    WHEREFORE, consistent with the crying need to maintain the high traditions and
    standards of the legal profession and to preserve undiminished public faith in attorneys-at-law,
    the Court Resolved to DISBAR respondent, Atty. Manuel L. Melo, from the practice of law. His
    name is hereby ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

    You might also like