TOPIC: DUTY OF FIDUCIARY

CITATION: A.C. No. 9615

TITLE: JINON v. JIZ
DATE: March 5, 2013
When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. Failure to exercise that degree of
DOCTRINE: vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer
unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable
not just to client but also to the legal profession, the court and society.
FACTS:
Complainant Jinon engaged the services of Atty. Jiz for the recovery of a land title from Viola, her sister
in law. In their subsequent meeting, Atty. Jiz assured the recovery of the title and transfer of the same in
Jinon's name. Jinon, upon Atty. Jiz's instructions, remitted the amount of ₱45,000.00 to answer for the
expenses of the transfer. However, when she later inquired about her case, she was surprised to learn
from Atty. Jiz that another lawyer was handling the same. Furthermore, when she visited the property
covered by the title, the same was leased out. She also discovered that Atty. Jiz has been collecting the
rentals of such lease amounting to P12,000. When Jinon demanded for the rentals, Atty. Jiz only paid
P7,000, explaining that the balance of P5,000 would be added to the expenses needed for the transfer of
the title of the property to her name.

The foregoing incidents prompted Jinon to terminate the legal services of Atty. Jiz and demand the return
of the amounts of ₱45,000.00 and ₱5,000.00 through a letter, which has remained unheeded. On the
other hand, Atty. Jiz has not complied with his undertaking to recover the title from Viola and effect its
transfer in Jinon’s name, and has failed to return her money despite due demands. Hence, the instant
administrative complaint praying that Atty. Jiz: (1) be ordered return her money and (2) be meted
disciplinary action that the Court may deem fit under the circumstances.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Jiz should be held administratively liable for having been remiss in his duties as a
lawyer with respect to the legal services he had undertaken to perform for his client.
HELD:
YES. The Court observed that Atty. Jiz violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust and account all money or
property received for or from the client, and deliver the same when due or upon demand. Furthermore,
the Court also observed that Atty. Jiz also violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the same Code, which provides
that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence, and a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the
latter’s rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a
family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable
not just to client but also to the legal profession, the court and society. Moreover, 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. Failure to return such 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.

In this case, aside from the demand letter which he sent to Viola, Atty. Jiz failed to perform any other
positive act in order to recover the land title from Viola for more than a year. He also failed to return,
despite due demand, the funds allocated for the transfer of the title that he received from her. Hence, the
Court suspended him for 2 years and is ordered to return to complainant Jinon the amount of ₱45,000.00
with legal interest of 6% per annum.