SALOMON v.

FRIAL
A.C. No. 7820, September 12, 2008

FACTS:
Atty. Ricardo M. Salomon, Jr. charged Atty. Joselito C. Frial with violating his Lawyers Oath and/or
gross misconduct arising from his actuations with respect to two attached vehicles.
As to the Nissan Sentra, that it was being used by other persons during the time he was supposed
to have custody of it.
The instant complaint has its beginning in the case, Lucy Lo v. Ricardo Salomon et al., in which a
writ of preliminary attachment was issued in favor of Lucy Lo, Atty. Frial’s client. The writ was used
to attach two (2) cars of complainant black 1995 Volvo and a green 1993 Nissan Sentra.
According to Atty. Salomon, the attaching sheriff of Manila, instead of depositing the attached
cars in the court premises, turned them over to Atty. Frial, Los counsel.
As to the Volvo, Atty. Frial admitted receiving it in excellent condition and that there was no court
order authorizing him to remove the car from the YMCA premises. Admitted too was the fact that
he secured the release of the Volvo on the strength alone of his own written undertaking; and that
the car was almost totally destroyed by fire on February 4, 2006 at 1:45 a.m. while parked in his
residence. He could not, however, explain the circumstances behind the destruction, but
admitted not reporting the burning to the court or the sheriff.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Frial failed to properly account the properties.

HELD:
YES.
For his negligence and unauthorized possession of the cars, we find Atty. Frial guilty of infidelity in
the custody of the attached cars and grave misconduct.
Atty. Frial miserably fell short of his duties as such officer. He trifled with the writ of attachment the
court issued.
Very patently, Atty. Frial was remiss in his obligation of taking good care of the attached cars. He
also allowed the use of the Nissan Sentra car by persons who had no business using it. He did not
inform the court or at least the sheriff of the destruction of the Volvo car. What is worse is that he
took custody of them without so much as informing the court, let alone securing, its authority.
Atty. Joselito C. Frial is adjudged guilty of grave misconduct and infidelity in the custody of
properties in custodia legis. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one
(1) year.

ALMENDAREZ v. LANGIT
A.C. No. 7057, July 25, 2006

FACTS:
Atty. Langit served as the counsel of the mother of Atty. Almendarez. While the case was pending,
defendant on the case Roger Bumanlag deposited monthly rentals for the property in dispute to
the Branch Clerk of Court. The trial court rendered a decision. A court order granted the Omnibus
Motion for Execution and Withdrawal of Deposited Rentals filed by Atty. Langit as complainant's
counsel. Atty. Langit then received the rentals deposited amounted to 255,000. Almendarez sent
demand letter for the accounting and return of the money but the same was not answered.
Hence this case.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Langit failed to properly account the money.
HELD:
Atty. Langit committed a flagrant violation of his oath when he received the sum of money
representing the monthly rentals intended for his client, without accounting for and returning such
sum to its rightful owner. Atty. Langit received the money in his capacity as counsel for
complainant. Therefore, Atty. Langit held the money in trust for complainant.

Atty. Langit should have immediately notified complainant of the trial court's approval of the
motion to withdraw the deposited rentals. Upon release of the funds to him, he could have
collected any lien which he had over them in connection with his legal services, provided he gave
prompt notice to complainant. A lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client's
money for himself by the mere fact that the client owes him attorney's fees. In this case, Atty.
Langit did not even seek to prove the existence of any lien, or any other right that he had to retain
the money.

Atty. Langit’s failure to turn over the money to complainant despite the latter's demands gives rise
to the presumption that he had converted the money for his personal use and benefit. This is a
gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics, impairing public confidence in
the legal profession.

SUSPEND Atty. Langit from the practice of law for two years

CHUA and HSIA v. MESINA

A.C. No. 4904. August 12, 2004

As Mrs. Mesina failed to meet her obligation to the bank, Atty. Mesina convinced complainant
Ana Chua and her husband to help Mrs. Mesina by way of settling her obligation in consideration
for which the Melencio property would be sold to them at P850.00/sq. m.
Accommodating respondents request they settled Mrs. Mesinas bank obligation in the amount of
P983,125.40.
A Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the Melencio property for P85,400.00 was thereafter executed
by Mrs. Mesina, whose name appears therein as Felicisima M. Melencio, in favor of Chua and Hsia.