MEDINA vs. ATTY. LIZARDO

SILVESTRA MEDINA and SANTOS MEDINA LORAYA, vs. ATTY. RUFINO LIZARDO

A.C. No. 10533

January 31, 2017

Facts:

Complainants Silvestra Medina (Silvestra) and her nephew Santos Medina Loraya (Santos) filed a Complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline against Atty. Rufino C. Lizardo (Atty. Lizardo). Complainants allege that Silvestra, because of her advanced age, entrusted the owner's duplicates of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 13866 and 3900 to Atty. Lizardo. However, since complainants are not the only owners of the properties covered by said TCTs, and other heirs were asking for the original duplicate copies, complainants went to the residence of Atty. Lizardo and requested the return of said TCTs on March 5, 2011. Atty. Lizardo refused to turn over the TCTs to the complainants.

 Atty. Lizardo admitted that he is the counsel of Silvestra and her sister, the late Alicia Medina (Alicia), who is also the mother of Santos. According to Atty. Lizardo, Silvestra entrusted TCTs No. 13866 and 3900 to him sometime in 1987 because Silvestra, Santos, and Alicia sold their shares in lots 456, 457 and 458 in favor of a certain Renato Martinez (Martinez). Atty. Lizardo claims that he refused to return the subject TCTs because complainants did not secure the written consent of Martinez.

Complainants firmly believe that as their lawyer, Atty. Lizardo should protect their interests and legal rights. Respondent should not favor other persons except his clients. It would appear that as admitted by Renato Martinez, he was the one who shouldered all legal expenses including that of the respondent. Respondent should not have allowed the same to happen because definitely, a conflict of interest might arise later on, as what is happening now. Respondent is lawyering for the complainants and at the same time, lawyering for the interest of Renato Martinez.

Issue:

Whether or not the acts of the respondent lawyer violates the Code of Professional Responsibility

Held:

Yes. As counsels for Silvestra and Alicia, Atty. Lizardo is required to deliver the property of his client when due or upon demand, and mandated to always be loyal to them and vigilant to protect their interests, in accordance with the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.

Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.

CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

Atty. Lizardo's withholding of the TCTs entrusted to him by his clients to protect another purported client who surreptitiously acquired his services despite a conflict of interest is therefore a clear violation of several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. For this reason, we also uphold the grant of complainants' prayer for the return of the subject titles which they turned over to Atty. Lizardo for safekeeping. In any event, the return of said TCTs will not unduly prejudice Martinez who may cause his adverse claim to be duly annotated thereon.