JMD BLE DIGEST THE CLIENTS UST-1B

Ruby v. Espejo

Facts:
The complainant, Michael Ruby and his mother, engaged the
services of the respondents in connection with a case for
cancellation and nullification of deeds of donation. Pursuant to their
retainer agreement, the complainant and Felicitas agreed to pay
Atty. Erlinda Espejo the amount of P100,000.00 as acceptance fee,
P70,000.00 of which was actually paid upon the signing of the
agreement and the remaining P30,000.00 to be paid after the hearing
on the prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
(TRO). The complainants also agreed to pay the amount of
P5,000.00 as appearance fee for every hearing, which was then
reduced to P4,000.00.

On September 15, 2009, the complainant gave Atty. Espejo the

amount of P50,000.00 as payment for filing fee. A day later, Atty.
Espejo filed the complaint for nullification and cancellation of deeds
of donation with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.
However, the actual filing fee that was paid by her only amounted
to P7,561.00 and that she also failed to account for the excess
amount given her despite several demand letters produced by the
complainants.
JMD BLE DIGEST THE CLIENTS UST-1B

On September 23, 2009, Atty. Espejo allegedly asked the

complainant to give Atty. Rudolph Bayot the amount of P30,000.00
– the remaining balance of the acceptance fee agreed upon –
although the prayer for the issuance of a TRO has yet to be heard.
However, the complainant opined that it was not yet due as per their
agreement, but Atty. Espejo told him that Atty. Bayot was in dire
need of money. The complainant then gave Atty. Bayot the amount
of P8,000.00 supposedly as partial payment for the balance of the
acceptance fee and an additional P4,000.00 as appearance fee for the
September 22, 2009 hearing.

On September 25, 2009, Atty. Espejo called the complainant as they

need to file a separate petition for the issuance of a TRO. She then
asked for P50,000.00 to be used as “representation fee.” The
complainant, again, was able to bargain with Atty. Espejo and gave
her P20,000.00 instead.

Meanwhile, on September 24, 2009, the RTC issued an Order

denying the complainant’s prayer for the issuance of a TRO. In this
instance, the complainant alleged that the respondents failed to
apprise him of the denial of his prayer for the issuance of a TRO;
JMD BLE DIGEST THE CLIENTS UST-1B

that he only came to know of said denial on November 3, 2009 when

he visited the RTC.

On October 23, 2009, the complainant deposited the amount of

P4,000.00 to the bank account of Atty. Bayot as appearance fee for
the hearing on the motion to serve summons through publications,
which was set at 2:00 p.m. on even date. However, Atty. Bayot
allegedly did not appear in court and instead met with the
complainant at the lobby of the Quezon City Hall of Justice,
telling them that he already talked to the clerk of court who
assured him that the court would grant their motion.

The complainants now alleges that the respondents failed to update

him as to the status of his complaint. He further claimed that Atty.
However, Bayot had suddenly denied that he was their counsel.
Atty. Bayot asserted that it was Atty. Espejo alone who was the
counsel of the complainant and that he was merely a collaborating
counsel.
Atty. Bayot further pointed out that he had no part in the retainer
agreement that was entered into by the complainant, Felicitas, and
Atty. Espejo. He also denied having any knowledge as to the
P50,000.00 that was paid to Atty. Espejo as filing fees.
JMD BLE DIGEST THE CLIENTS UST-1B

As to the P12,000.00 that was given him, he claimed that he was

entitled to P4,000.00 thereof since the said amount was his
appearance fee. He pointed out that he appeared before the RTC’s
hearing for the issuance of a TRO on September 22, 2009. On the
other hand, the P8,000.00 was paid to him as part of the acceptance
fee, which was then already due since the RTC had already heard
their prayer for the issuance of a TRO.15cralawlawlibrary

He also denied any knowledge as to the P20,000.00 that was paid to

Atty. Espejo purportedly for “representation fee” that would be used
to file a new petition for the issuance of a TRO.

Atty. Bayot admitted that he was the one who drafted the motion to
serve summons through publication but pointed out that it was Atty.
Espejo who signed and filed it in the RTC. He also admitted that he
was the one who was supposed to attend the hearing of the said
motion but claimed that he was only requested to do so by Atty.
Espejo since the latter had another commitment. He denied
requesting from the complainant the amount of P4,000.00 as
appearance fee, alleging that it was the latter who insisted on
depositing the same in his bank account.17cralawlawlibrary
JMD BLE DIGEST THE CLIENTS UST-1B

On the other hand, Atty. Espejo, in her Answer, denied asking for
P50,000.00 from the complainant as filing fees. She insisted that it
was the complainant who voluntarily gave her the money to cover
the filing fees. She further alleged that she was not able to account
for the excess amount because her files were destroyed when her
office was flooded due to a typhoon. She also denied having asked
another P50,000.00 from the complainant as “representation fee,”
asserting that the said amount was for the payment of the injunction
bond once the prayer for the issuance of a TRO is issued.

Findings of the Investigating Commissioner

On May 3, 2011, after due proceedings, the Investigating
Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation,20 which
recommended the penalty of censure against the respondents. The
Investigating Commissioner pointed out that Atty. Bayot and the
complainant had a lawyer-client relationship notwithstanding that
the former was not the counsel of record in the case.
Nevertheless, the Investigating Commissioner found that the
complainant failed to prove that he indeed suffered injury as a result
of the respondents’ conduct and, accordingly, should only be meted
the penalty of censure.
JMD BLE DIGEST THE CLIENTS UST-1B

Findings of the IBP Board of Governors

The IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution which adopted and

approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
with the modification of increasing the penalty imposed upon Atty.
Espejo and Atty. Bayot from censure to suspension from the practice
of law for a period of one year.
The IBP Board of Governors also issued a Resolution, which
dismissed the case of Atty. Espejo in view of her demise. The IBP
Board of Governors affirmed Atty. Bayot’s suspension from the
practice of law for a period of one year.

The Issue
Whether or Not Atty. Bayot violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which would warrant the imposition of disciplinary
sanction.

Ruling of the Court

Yes. Although the court also disagrees with some points raised by
the IBP.
JMD BLE DIGEST THE CLIENTS UST-1B

The court does not agree when Atty. Bayot claimed that he is not the
counsel of record of the complainant in the case before the RTC.
Likewise, it also incorrect when he pointed out that he had no part
in the retainer agreement entered into by the complainant and Atty.
Espejo.
Atty. Bayot was the one who prepared the complaint that was filed
with the RTC. He was likewise the one who prepared the motion to
serve summons through publication. He likewise appeared as
counsel for the complainant in the hearings of the case before the
RTC. He likewise advised the complainant on the status of the case.

Also, Atty. Bayot admitted that he received P8,000.00, which is part

of the acceptance fee indicated in the retainer agreement, from the
complainant. It is true that it was Atty. Espejo who asked the
complainant to give Atty. Bayot the said amount. However, Atty.
Bayot admitted that he accepted from the complainant the said
P8,000.00 without even explaining what the said amount was for.
The foregoing circumstances, according to the court, clearly
established a lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Bayot and the
complainant.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall
hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come
into his possession (Canon 16). Consequently, the code stipulates
JMD BLE DIGEST THE CLIENTS UST-1B

that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence
(Canon 18).
Accordingly, Atty. Bayot owes fidelity to the cause of the
complainant and is obliged to keep the latter informed of the status
of his case. He is likewise bound to account for all money or
property collected or received from the complainant. He may be
held administratively liable for any inaptitude or negligence he may
have had committed in his dealing with the complainant.

However, according to the Investigating Commissioner’s findings,

which was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors, it did not make
a distinction as to which specific acts or omissions the respondents
are each personally responsible for.

In this line, Atty. Bayot may not be held liable for the failure to
account for and return the excess of the P50,000.00 which was paid
by the complainant for the filing fees. The evidence on record shows
that it was Atty. Espejo alone who received the said amount and that
she was the one who paid the filing fees when the complaint was
filed with the RTC. The fact that Atty. Bayot had no knowledge of
the said amount paid by the complainant for the filing fees is even
admitted by the complainant himself.
JMD BLE DIGEST THE CLIENTS UST-1B

Atty. Espejo admitted that she was the one who failed to account for
the filing fees, alleging that the files in her office were destroyed by
flood. Likewise, the demand letters written by the complainant,
which were seeking the accounting for the ?50,000.00 filing fee,
were all solely addressed to Atty. Espejo. Clearly, Atty. Bayot may
not be held administratively liable for the failure to account for the
filing fees.
Atty. Bayot cannot also be held liable for the P20,000.00 which
Atty. Espejo asked from the complainant for “representation fee.”
The complainant failed to adduce any evidence that would establish
that Atty. Bayot knew of and came into possession of the said
amount paid by the complainant.

The court also ruled that Atty. Bayot is legally entitled to the
P8,000.00 he received from the complainant on September 23, 2009,
the same being his share in the acceptance fee agreed to by the
complainant in the retainer agreement. He is likewise legally
entitled to the P4,000.00 from the complainant on even date as it is
the payment for his appearance fee in the hearing for the issuance of
a TRO on September 22, 2009. However, Atty. Bayot is not entitled
to the P4,000.00 which the complainant deposited to his bank
account on October 23, 2009. Atty. Bayot admitted that there was
no hearing scheduled on the said date; their motion to serve
JMD BLE DIGEST THE CLIENTS UST-1B

summons through publication was not included in the RTC’s

calendar that day. Accordingly, Atty. Bayot is obliged to return the
said amount to the complainant.

Regarding the complainant’s charge of gross neglect against Atty.

Bayot, the Court findsthe contention without merit. The Court has
consistently held that in suspension or disbarment proceedings
against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence,
and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the
allegations in his complaint.

In the case at bar, the complainant asked Atty. Espejo to withdraw

as being the counsel of record in the case before the RTC in favor of
Atty. Bayot since he was the one who actually prepared the
pleadings and attended the hearings of their motions. This makes
the charge of neglect against Atty. Bayot as premature, considering
that the case before the RTC was still in the early stages and
the pre-trial and trial have not even started yet. Losing their bid for
the issuance of a TRO is not akin to neglect on the part of Atty.
Bayot.

However, the court says that Atty. Bayot is not entirely without
fault. After all the complaint was brought about by his intervention
JMD BLE DIGEST THE CLIENTS UST-1B

when the complainant sought the legal services of Atty. Espejo.

Atty. Bayot is reminded to be more circumspect in his dealings with
clients.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Rudolph Dilla Bayot is hereby

ADMONISHED to exercise more prudence and judiciousness in
dealing with his clients. He is also ordered to return to Michael
Ruby within fifteen (15) days from notice the amount of Four
Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) representing his appearance fee
received from the latter on October 23, 2009 with a warning that
failure on his part to do so will result in the imposition of stiffer
disciplinary action.