Legal Ethics

In Re: Jose Topacio Nueno

Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.

image_printPrint this!

A.M. No. 26 – 84 Phil. 178 – Legal Ethics – Misappropriation of Client’s Funds

In 1947, Ramon de la Rama filed a civil suit involving a lease contract against Hanz Galewsky and Fred Redfern. Hanz and Fred were represented by Atty. Jose Topacio Nueno. While the case was pending, Hanz and Fred delivered money to Atty. Nueno for him to deposit said money in court as rent payment pending resolution of the lease contract dispute. However, when Ramon tried to withdraw the rent deposits from the court, he found out that no deposits were made. He then moved for execution. Hanz and Fred found out about Atty. Nueno’s failure to deposit. In order not to be excluded from the leased premises, Hanz and Fred had to obtain a loan to pay Ramon. Hanz and Fred then demanded Atty. Nueno to return the amount delivered to him otherwise he will be administratively charged. Atty. Nueno did not comply hence, he was administratively charged.

After the charge, Atty. Nueno filed a motion to dismiss attaching thereto a written manifestation from Hanz and Fred that they would like to withdraw the complaint as Atty. Nueno finally paid them.

ISSUE: Whether or not the administrative charge should be dismissed.

HELD: No. The withdrawal from the complaint by Hanz and Fred does not automatically dismiss the administrative charge. Atty. Nueno was given numerous opportunities by the judge to deposit in court the rentals. His initial excuse was that he deposited the rentals in the bank. Then he changed his excuse when he was administratively charged as he claimed that he believed that depositing the rental payments in court no longer had legal basis – which was a mere afterthought. Further, it was also found that Atty. Nueno all along do not have sufficient deposits in his bank accounts which only means he did not deposit in bank the rental payments delivered to him by his clients. There is evidence then that Atty. Nueno violated the professional trust between him and his clients. He did not use the money entrusted to him for the benefit of his clients, as they expected, but in another way. He is guilty of unprofessional practice. He was suspended for two years.

Read full text.

image_printPrint this!

Leave a Reply