G.R. No. CBD A.C. No. 313 January 30, 1998
Atty. Augusto G. Navarro, for and in behalf of Pan-Asia International Commodities, Inc., complainant, vs. Atty. Rosendo Meneses III, respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Augusto G. Navarro filed a complaint-affidavit before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on behalf of Pan-Asia International Commodities, Inc. against respondent Atty. Rosendo Meneses III. The charges included malpractice, gross misconduct, dereliction of duty, willful abandonment, and loss of trust and confidence. The complaint alleged that while serving as legal counsel for Frankwell Management and Consultant, Inc. (which includes Pan-Asia), respondent received P50,000.00 from his client, Arthur Bretaña, an accused in a criminal case, to be given to the offended party, Gleason, for an out-of-court settlement and to file a motion to dismiss. Respondent failed to present a receipt, no motion to dismiss was filed, the settlement was not finalized, and he ignored repeated demands for an explanation and to turnover case documents. The Commission denied respondent’s motion to dismiss, which argued lack of legal personality of the complainant and that the case was not part of his retainer. Despite opportunities, respondent repeatedly failed to attend hearings. The Commission received ex parte testimony from complainant’s witness, Estrellita Valdez. The Commission found respondent misappropriated the funds and recommended a three-year suspension and an order to return the P50,000.00 within fifteen days, with failure to comply resulting in disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors approved this. Respondent failed to restitute the amount within the given period.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Rosendo Meneses III should be disbarred for misappropriating client funds and for gross misconduct.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Rosendo Meneses III is DISBARRED. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s finding that respondent misappropriated the P50,000.00 entrusted to him and failed to account for it, constituting a gross violation of his oath and of Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to account for all money or property received from a client. The Court rejected respondent’s argument on the complainant’s lack of legal personality, noting that disbarment proceedings may be initiated by any person under Rule 139-B. The Court also found that respondent unjustifiably failed to communicate with his client about the case status. The Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty, noting that penalties cannot be imposed in the alternative or subject to a condition. Since respondent failed to return the money as directed, disbarment was warranted.