SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 11822. November 22, 2017.]

VICKA MARIE D. ISALOS, complainant , vs. ATTY. ANA LUZ B.

CRISTAL, respondent.

RESOLUTION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J : p

This administrative case arose from a verified complaint 1 for

disbarment filed by complainant Vicka Marie D. Isalos (complainant) against
respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal (respondent) for violation of Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 and Rules 16.01, 16.02, and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR) arising from respondent's alleged failure to
account for the money entrusted to her. HTcADC

The Facts
Complainant alleged that she is the Director and Treasurer of C Five
Holdings, Management & Consultancy, Inc. (C Five), a corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines with principal office
in Libis, Quezon City. Respondent was C Five's Corporate Secretary and
Legal Counsel who handled its incorporation and registration with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2
Sometime in July 2011, when C Five was exploring investment options,
respondent recommended the purchase of a resort in Laguna, with the
assurances that the title covering the property was "clean" and the taxes
were fully paid. Relying on respondent's recommendation, C Five agreed to
acquire the property and completed the payment of the purchase price. 3
Respondent volunteered and was entrusted to facilitate the transfer
and registration of the title of the property in C Five's name. On September
5, 2011, complainant personally handed the sum of P1,200,000.00 to
respondent at her office in Makati City, as evidenced by Official Receipt No.
1038 4 of even date. The said amount was intended to cover the expenses
for the documentation, preparation, and notarization of the Final Deed of
Sale, as well as payment of capital gains tax, documentary stamp tax, and
other fees relative to the sale and transfer of the property. 5
More than a year thereafter, however, no title was transferred in C
Five's name. It was then discovered that the title covering the property is a
Free Patent 6 issued on August 13, 2009, rendering any sale, assignment, or
transfer thereof within a period of five (5) years from issuance of the title
null and void. Thus, formal demand 7 was made upon respondent to return
the P1,200,000.00 entrusted to her for the expenses which remained
unheeded, prompting C Five to file a criminal complaint for Estafa before the
Makati City Prosecutor's Office, i.e., NPS No. XV-05-INV-13D-1253, 8 as well
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 as the present case for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, i.e., CBD Case No. 14-4321.
In defense, 9 respondent claimed that she paid the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) registration, Mayor's Permit, business licenses,
documentation, and other expenses using the money entrusted to her by
complainant, 10 as itemized in a Statement of Expenses11 that she had
prepared, and that she was ready to turn over the balance in the amount of
P885,068.00. However, C Five refused to receive the said amount, insisting
that the entire P1,200,000.00 should be returned. 12 Moreover, she pointed
out that the criminal case for Estafa filed against her by C Five had already
been dismissed 13 for lack of probable cause. 14 As such, she prayed that the
disbarment case against her be likewise dismissed for lack of merit. 15
The IBP's Report and Recommendation
After due proceedings, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP
(CBD-IBP) issued a Report and Recommendation 16 dated June 29, 2015,
finding respondent administratively liable and thereby, recommending her
suspension from the legal profession for a period of three (3) years. 17 The
CBD-IBP found that respondent actually received the amount of
P1,200,000.00 from complainant, which amount was intended to cover the
expenses and payment of taxes for the sale and transfer of the property to C
Five's name. Likewise, it was undisputed that despite demands from the
company to return the said amount, respondent failed to do so. Worse, she
offered a Statement of Expenses with "feigned expenditures" in an attempt
to prove that a portion of the money had already been spent. Thus, the CBD-
IBP concluded that there was dishonesty on the part of respondent and
accordingly, recommended the penalty of suspension. 18
In a Resolution 19 dated June 30, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors
resolved to adopt and approve with modification the CBD-IBP's Report and
Recommendation dated June 29, 2015, meting upon respondent the penalty
of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year and directing the
return of the amount of P1,200,000.00 to complainant.
In respondent's motion for reconsideration, 20 she maintained that
there was no intention on her part to retain the money and that she was
willing to return the amount of P885,068.00, as shown in her Statement of
Expenses, which she claimed was accompanied by corresponding receipts.
Moreover, she averred that on September 30, 2015, in order to buy peace,
she delivered the amount of P1,200,000.00 to Atty. Anselmo Sinjian III,
counsel for complainant, 21 as evidenced by an Acknowledgment Receipt 22
of even date. As a consequence, complainant filed a Withdrawal of
Complaint for Disbarment 23 before the IBP.
In a Resolution 24 dated January 26, 2017, the IBP denied respondent's
motion for reconsideration.
The Issue before the Court
The sole issue for the Court's consideration is whether or not grounds
exist to hold respondent administratively liable. aScITE

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 The Court's Ruling
After a punctilious review of the records, the Court concurs with the
findings and conclusions of the IBP that respondent should be held
administratively liable in this case.
The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on
those who possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the
profession. As such, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high
standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing,
and must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the
courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms embodied
in the Code. 25 "Lawyers may, thus, be disciplined for any conduct that is
wanting of the above standards whether in their professional or in their
private capacity." 26
The CPR, particularly Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, provides:
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.
RULE 16.03 — A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of
his client when due or upon demand. x x x.
Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for the
processing of transfer of land title, but not used for the purpose, should be
immediately returned. 27 A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds
held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has
appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed to
him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality, as well as
of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and
deserves punishment. 28
In this case, it is indubitable that respondent received the amount of
P1,200,000.00 from complainant to be used to cover the expenses for the
transfer of title of the subject property under C Five's name. Respondent
admitted having received the same, but claimed that she had spent a
portion of it for various expenses, such as documentation, permits, and
licenses, among others, as evidenced by the Statement of Expenses with
attached receipts. However, it has been established that the registration of
the property in C Five's name could not have materialized, as the subject
property was covered by a Free Patent issued on August 13, 2009 which,
consequently, bars it from being sold, assigned, or transferred within a
period of five (5) years therefrom. Thus, and as the CBD-IBP had aptly
opined, 29 there was no longer any reason for respondent to retain the
money. Furthermore, the expenditures enumerated in the Statement of
Expenses, except for the documentation and notarization fees for which no
receipts were attached, do not relate to the purposes for which the money
was given, i.e., the documentation and registration of the subject property.
As such, even if official receipts had been duly attached for the other
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 purposes — which, the Court notes, respondent failed to do despite the
opportunity given — the expenditures are not legitimate ones. Hence, the
Court finds respondent to have violated the above-cited rules, to the
detriment and prejudice of complainant.
Respondent's assertion that the instant disbarment case should be
dismissed, in view of the return of the full amount to complainant and the
latter's withdrawal of the complaint against her is specious. Such are not
ample grounds to completely exonerate the administrative liability of
respondent. It is settled that a case of suspension or disbarment may
proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant, 30 the
latter not being a direct party to the case, but a witness who brought the
matter to the attention of the Court. 31 A proceeding for suspension or
disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the
respondent-lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no
private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are
undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, and for the purpose
of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit
to practice. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as
an officer of the court. "The complainant or the person who called the
attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct x x x has
generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in
the proper administration of justice." 32 The real question for determination
in these proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be
allowed the privileges of a member of the bar. 33
With regard to the proper penalty to be meted upon respondent, the
Court has, in several similar cases, imposed the penalty of suspension for
two (2) years against erring lawyers. In Jinon v. Jiz , 34 the Court suspended
the lawyer for a period of two (2) years for his failure to return the amount
his client gave him for his legal services, which he never performed.
Similarly, in Agot v. Rivera, 35 the Court suspended respondent for the same
period for his failure to handle the legal matter entrusted to him and to
return the legal fees in connection therewith, among others. Considering,
however, the return of the full amount of P1,200,000.00 to C Five,
respondent is instead meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for one (1) year.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal is found guilty of
violation of Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, she is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
a period of one (1) year, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.HEITAD

The suspension in the practice of law shall take effect immediately

upon receipt by respondent. Respondent is DIRECTED to immediately file a
Manifestation to the Court that her suspension has started, copy furnished all
courts and quasi-judicial bodies where she has entered her appearance as
counsel.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Confidant to be entered in respondent's personal records as a member of
the Philippine Bar, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all
its chapters, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all
courts.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Peralta and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Reyes, Jr., * J., is on official leave.

Footnotes

* On official leave.
1. Dated September 11, 2014. Rollo , pp. 2-6.

2. Id. at 2.
3. Id.
4. Id. at 7.

5. See id. at 2-3.

6. See Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo No. P-6403; id. at 8, including dorsal portion
thereof.
7. Dated November 14, 2012. Id. at 9.

8. See id. at 3 and 54.

9. See Answer/Opposition dated February 16, 2015; id. at 38-42.
10. Id. at 39.

11. Id. at 53.

12. Id. at 40.

13. See Resolution dated September 11, 2013 issued by Assistant City Prosecutor
Leilia R. Llanes; id. at 54-56.

14. Id. at 40.

15. Id.

16. Id. at 139-140. Penned by Commissioner Eduardo R. Robles.

17. Id. at 140.
18. See id. at 139-140.

19. See Notice of Resolution in Resolution No. XXI-2015-627 issued by National

Secretary Nasser A. Marohomsalic; id. at 138, including dorsal portion.

20. Id. at 141-147.

21. Id. at 144-145.

22. Id. at 152.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 23. Dated October 6, 2015. Id. at 153-154.

24. See Notice of Resolution in Resolution No. XXII-2017-721 issued by Assistant

National Secretary Camille Bianca M. Gatmaitan-Santos; id. at 160-161.
25. See Molina v. Magat, 687 Phil. 1, 5 (2012).

26. Tumbokon v. Pefianco , 692 Phil. 202, 207 (2012).

27. See Dhaliwal vs. Dumaguing, 692 Phil. 209, 213 (2012).

28. Id. at 213, citing Adrimisin v. Javier, 532 Phil. 639, 645-646 (2006).

29. See rollo, pp. 139-140.

30. Quiachon v. Ramos , 735 Phil. 1, 6 (2014), citing Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, 349
Phil. 7, 15 (1998).
31. Ylaya v. Gacott, 702 Phil. 390, 407 (2013).
32. Bautista v. Bernabe, 517 Phil. 236, 241 (2006).
33. Pena v. Aparicio, 552 Phil. 512, 521 (2007), citing In re Almacen, 142 PHIL 353-
393 n (1970).
34. See 705 Phil. 321 (2013).
35. See 740 Phil. 393 (2014).

n Note from the Publisher: Written as "31 Phil. 562, 600-601" in

the official document.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com