0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
104 vues1 page
Hector Treñas, a lawyer, was found guilty of estafa by the Regional Trial Court after he misappropriated P150,000 given to him by his client Elizabeth to cover expenses for transferring a property title under her aunt Margarita's name. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court of Makati did not have jurisdiction over the case as there was no showing that the offense was committed within Makati City. The Supreme Court also noted that Hector Treñas' conduct violated the Code of Professional Responsibility regarding the proper handling of client funds, and referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.
Hector Treñas, a lawyer, was found guilty of estafa by the Regional Trial Court after he misappropriated P150,000 given to him by his client Elizabeth to cover expenses for transferring a property title under her aunt Margarita's name. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court of Makati did not have jurisdiction over the case as there was no showing that the offense was committed within Makati City. The Supreme Court also noted that Hector Treñas' conduct violated the Code of Professional Responsibility regarding the proper handling of client funds, and referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.
Hector Treñas, a lawyer, was found guilty of estafa by the Regional Trial Court after he misappropriated P150,000 given to him by his client Elizabeth to cover expenses for transferring a property title under her aunt Margarita's name. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court of Makati did not have jurisdiction over the case as there was no showing that the offense was committed within Makati City. The Supreme Court also noted that Hector Treñas' conduct violated the Code of Professional Responsibility regarding the proper handling of client funds, and referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.
[G.R. No. 195002. January 25, 2012.] FACTS: Sometime in December 1999, Margarita Alocilja wanted to buy a house-and-lot in Iloilo CitY. It was then mortgaged with Maybank. The bank manager Joselito Palma recommended Atty. Hector Treas to Elizabeth, who was an employee and niece of Margarita, for advice regarding the transfer of the title in the latter's name. Hector informed Elizabeth that for the titling of the property in the name of her aunt Margarita, expenses would be incurred. Thereafter, Elizabeth gave P150,000.00 to Hector who issued a corresponding receipt but the latter misappropriated and converted it to his own personal use. RTC rendered a Decision finding petitioner guilty of the crime of Estafa. CA affirmed. ISSUE: jurisdiction of RTC. RULING:There being no showing that the offense was committed within Makati, the RTC of that city has no jurisdiction over the case. Court sees it fit to note that the Code of Professional Responsibility strongly militates against the petitioner's conduct in handling the funds of his client. Rules 16.01 and 16.02 of the Code provides such. When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose, he should promptly account to the client how the money was spent. His failure either to render an accounting or to returnthe money constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Moreover, a lawyer has the duty to deliver his client's funds or properties as they fall due or upondemand. His failure to return the client's money upon demand gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the client. The case is thus referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for the initiation of disciplinaryproceedings against petitioner.
G.R. No. L-8957 April 29, 1957 - People of The Phil. v. Andres O. Ferrerbr BR 101 Phil 234 April 1957 - Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence - Chanrobles Virtual Law Library