THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 10558. February 23, 2015.]

MICHAEL RUBY , complainant, vs . ATTY. ERLINDA B. ESPEJO and

ATTY. RUDOLPH DILLA BAYOT , respondents.

DECISION

REYES , J : p

This is an administrative complaint 1 led by Michael Ruby (complainant) with the

Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against
Atty. Erlinda B. Espejo (Atty. Espejo) and Atty. Rudolph Dilla Bayot (Atty. Bayot)
(respondents) for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Facts
The complainant alleged that he and his mother, Felicitas Ruby Bihla (Felicitas),
engaged the services of the respondents in connection with a case for cancellation and
nulli cation of deeds of donation. Pursuant to the retainer agreement 2 dated August 29,
2009, the complainant and Felicitas would pay Atty. 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 complainant and Felicitas likewise agreed to pay
the amount of P5,000.00 as appearance fee for every hearing, which was apparently later
reduced to P4,000.00.
On September 15, 2009, the complainant gave Atty. Espejo the amount of
P50,000.00 as payment for ling fee. 3 On September 16, 2009, Atty. Espejo led the
complaint for nulli cation and cancellation of deeds of donation with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 219. However, the actual ling fee that was paid by her
only amounted to P7,561.00; 4 she failed to account for the excess amount given her
despite several demand letters 5 therefor.
On September 23, 2009, Atty. Espejo allegedly asked the complainant to give Atty.
Bayot the amount of P30,000.00 — the remaining balance of the acceptance fee agreed
upon — notwithstanding that the prayer for the issuance of a TRO has yet to be heard. The
complainant asserted that the same was not yet due, but Atty. Espejo told him that Atty.
Bayot was in dire need of money. The complainant 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. 6
On September 25, 2009, Atty. Espejo called the complainant informing him of the
need to le a separate petition for the issuance of a TRO. She allegedly asked for
P50,000.00 to be used as "representation fee." The complainant was able to bargain with
Atty. Espejo and gave her P20,000.00 instead. 7 DISaEA

Meanwhile, on September 24, 2009, the RTC issued an Order 8 denying the
complainant's prayer for the issuance of a TRO. The complainant alleged that the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 respondents failed to apprise him of the denial of his prayer for the issuance of a TRO; that
he only came to know of said denial on November 3, 2009 when he visited the RTC. 9
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. 10
Thereafter, the complainant alleged, the respondents failed to update him as to the
status of his complaint. He further claimed that Atty. 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.
In its Order 11 dated January 7, 2010, the IBP-CBD directed the respondents to
submit their respective answers to the complaint.
In his Answer, 12 Atty. Bayot claimed that he was not the counsel of the complainant;
that he merely assisted him and Atty. Espejo. He averred that Atty. Espejo, with the
complainant's consent, sought his help for the sole purpose of drafting a complaint. He
pointed out that it was Atty. Espejo who signed and filed the complaint in the RTC. 13
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. 14
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. 15
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 le a new petition for the
issuance of a TRO. 16 CAaDTH

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 led 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. 17
During the said hearing, Atty. Bayot claimed that when he checked the court's
calendar, he noticed that their motion was not included. Allegedly, the clerk of court told
him that she would just tell the judge to consider their motion submitted for resolution. 18
On the other hand, Atty. Espejo, in her Answer, 19 denied asking for P50,000.00 from
the complainant as ling fees. She insisted that it was the complainant who voluntarily
gave her the money to cover the ling fees. She further alleged that she was not able to
account for the excess amount because her les were destroyed when her o ce was
ooded due to a typhoon. She also denied having asked another P50,000.00 from the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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. That his admission that he was a collaborating counsel was
su cient to constitute a lawyer client relationship. Moreover, considering that Atty. Bayot
initially received the amount of P12,000.00 from the complainant, the Investigating
Commissioner opined that he can no longer deny that he was the lawyer of the
complainant. The Investigating Commissioner further found that:
Parenthetically, Respondents had asked and demanded prompt payment
of their attorney's fees or appearance fees and even asked for amounts for
dubious purposes yet they, just the same, performed their duties to their clients
leisurely and lethargically. Worse, when the trusting Complainant had noticed that
his case was headed for disaster and wanted Respondents to explain their
obviously slothful and listless services, they disappeared or became evasive thus
fortifying the conclusion that they indeed have performed and carried out their
duties to Complainant way below the standards set by the Code of [P]rofessional
Responsibility. 21

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.
Findings of the IBP Board of Governors
On March 20, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution, 22 which
adopted and approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, albeit with
the modi cation that the penalty imposed upon Atty. Espejo and Atty. Bayot was
increased from censure to suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year.
Atty. Bayot moved to reconsider the Resolution dated March 20, 2013 issued by the
IBP Board of Governors. 23 The complainant likewise led a motion for reconsideration,
asking the IBP Board of Governors to order the respondents to refund to him the amount
he paid to the respondents. 24 In the meantime, Atty. Espejo passed away. 25
On March 22, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution, 26 which
dismissed the case insofar as Atty. Espejo in view of her demise. The IBP Board of
Governors a rmed Atty. Bayot's suspension from the practice of law for a period of one
year.
On December 3, 2014, the Court issued a Resolution, 27 which, inter alia, considered
the case closed and terminated as to Atty. Espejo on account of her death. Accordingly,
the Court's disquisition in this case would only be limited to the liability of Atty. Bayot.
The Issue
The issue in this case is whether Atty. Bayot violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which would warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction. SIcCEA

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Ruling of the Court
After a thorough perusal of the respective allegations of the parties and the
circumstances of this case, the Court modi es the ndings of the Investigating
Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors.
Atty. Bayot claimed that he is not the counsel of record of the complainant in the
case before the RTC. He pointed out that he had no part in the retainer agreement entered
into by the complainant and Atty. Espejo. Thus, Atty. Bayot claimed, the complainant had
no cause of action against him.
The Court does not agree.
It is undisputed that Atty. Espejo was the counsel of record in the case that was
led in the RTC. Equally undisputed is the fact that it was only Atty. Espejo who signed the
retainer agreement. However, the evidence on record, including Atty. Bayot's admissions,
points to the conclusion that a lawyer-client relationship existed between him and the
complainant.
Atty. Bayot was the one who prepared the complaint that was led 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.
More importantly, 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 clearly established that a lawyer-client relationship
existed between Atty. Bayot and the complainant. "Documentary formalism is not an
essential element in the employment of an attorney; the contract may be express or
implied. To establish the relation, it is su cient that the advice and assistance of an
attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession." 28 Further,
acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship. 29
Accordingly, as regards the case before the RTC, the complainant had two counsels —
Atty. Espejo and Atty. Bayot.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:
CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.
Rule 16.02 — A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate
and apart from his own and those of others kept by him.
xxx xxx xxx
CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE
AND DILIGENCE.
xxx xxx xxx
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of
his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request
for information.

Accordingly, Atty. Bayot owes delity 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.
In Del Mundo v. Capistrano, 30 the Court emphasized that:
Indeed, 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 his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and
society. His workload does not justify neglect in handling one's case because it is
settled that a lawyer must only accept cases as much as he can e ciently
handle.
Moreover, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his client that may
come to his possession. As trustee of such funds, he is bound to keep them
separate and apart from his own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a speci c
purpose such as for the ling and processing of a case if not utilized, must be
returned immediately upon demand. Failure to return gives rise to a presumption
that he has misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him. And the
conversion of funds entrusted to him constitutes gross violation of professional
ethics and betrayal of public con dence in the legal profession. 31 (Citations
omitted) HCEcaT

Nevertheless, the administrative liability of a lawyer for any infractions of his duties
attaches only to such circumstances, which he is personally accountable for. It would be
plainly unjust if a lawyer would be held accountable for acts, which he did not commit.
The Investigating Commissioner's ndings, which was adopted by the IBP Board of
Governors, did not make a distinction as to which speci c acts or omissions the
respondents are each personally responsible for. This is inequitable since either of the
respondents may not be held personally liable for the infractions committed by the other.
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 ling 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 ling fees when the complaint was led with the RTC. That Atty.
Bayot had no knowledge of the said amount paid by the complainant for the ling fees is
even admitted by the complainant himself during the proceedings before the IBP-CBD, viz.:
ATTY. BAYOT:
So, Atty. Espejo ask you for P50,000[.00] as filing fee.

MR. RUBY:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Admitted.

ATTY. BAYOT:
That when he asked you about that, Atty. Bayot was not present.
MR. RUBY:

Admitted.
xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. BAYOT:
That later on you gave Atty. Espejo the P50,000[.00].
MR. RUBY:
Admitted.

ATTY. BAYOT:
That Atty. Bayot was not also present at that time.
MR. RUBY:
Admitted.

xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. BAYOT:
That never did Atty. Bayot ask you or followed-up from you the P50,000[.00] that
Atty. Espejo was asking as filing fee?
MR. RUBY:
Admitted.
xxx xxx xxx

MR. RUBY:
You have nothing to do with the P50,000[.00] that was Atty. Espejo. 32

Further, in her Answer, Atty. Espejo admitted that she was the one who failed to
account for the ling fees, alleging that the les in her o ce were destroyed by ood.
Likewise, the demand letters written by the complainant, which were seeking the
accounting for the P50,000.00 ling fee, were all solely addressed to Atty. Espejo. Clearly,
Atty. Bayot may not be held administratively liable for the failure to account for the ling
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.
On the other hand, 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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 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.
As regards the complainant's charge of gross neglect against Atty. Bayot, the Court
nds the same unsubstantiated. 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. 33
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for gross misconduct or for
transgressions de ned by the rules as grounds to strip a lawyer of professional license.
Considering, however, the serious consequences of either penalty, the Court will exercise
its power to disbar or suspend only upon a clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing of a lawyer as an o cer of the court and as
member of the bar.
The complainant merely alleged that, after the hearing on the motion to serve
summons through publication, the respondents had "made themselves scarce" and failed
to update him on the status of the case before the RTC. However, other than his bare
allegations, the complainant failed to present any evidence that would show that Atty.
Bayot was indeed remiss in his duties to the complainant. CHaDIT

However, the complainant's November 4, 2009 letter 34 to Atty. Espejo tells a

different story. In the said letter, 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. In any
case, the charge of neglect against Atty. Bayot was premature, if not unfair, considering
that, at that time, the case before the RTC was still in the early stages; the pre-trial and trial
have not even started yet. That they lost their bid for the issuance of a TRO is not
tantamount to neglect on the part of Atty. Bayot.
However, Atty. Bayot is not entirely without fault. This administrative complaint was
brought about by his intervention when the complainant sought the legal services of Atty.
Espejo. Atty. Bayot undertook to prepare the complaint to be led with the RTC and the
motion to serve summons through publication, attended the hearings, and advised the
complainant as to the status of the case without formally entering his appearance as
counsel of record. He was able to obtain remuneration for his legal services sans any
direct responsibility as to the progress of the case. 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 fteen (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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Del Castillo * and Villarama, Jr. JJ., concur.

Footnotes
* Acting Member per Special Order No. 1934 dated February 11, 2015 vice Associate Justice
Francis H. Jardeleza.
1. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 1-9.
2. Id. at 10.
3. Id. at 11.

4. Id. at 12.
5. Id. at 13-14.
6. Id. at 1-2, 15.
7. Id. at 2, 16.

8. Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 910-911.

9. Rollo, Vol. I, p. 2.
10. Id. at 4, 18.
11. Id. at 48.
12. Id. at 56-89.

13. Id. at 62-63.

14. Id. at 63.
15. Id. at 67-69.
16. Id. at 69-70.
17. Id. at 71-72.

18. Id. at 72.

19. Id. at 358-362.
20. Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 699-703.
21. Id. at 702.

22. Id. at 698.

23. Id. at 704-807.
24. Id. at 809-811.
25. Rollo, Vol. I, p. 378.
26. Rollo, Vol. III, p. 1231.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 27. Id. at 1239.
28. Toledo v. Kallos, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1900, January 28, 2005, 449 SCRA 446, 457.
29. Amaya v. Atty. Tecson, 491 Phil. 111, 117 (2005).

30. A.C. No. 6903, April 16, 2012, 669 SCRA 462.
31. Id. at 468.
32. Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 461-463.
33. Aba v. De Guzman, Jr., A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 361, 373.
34. Rollo, Vol. I, p. 22.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com