8/9/2019 Penticostes vs Ibanez Digest

1/1

Penticostes vs. Ibaez [A.C. CBD No. 167; March 9, 1999

!acts"

In 1989, Encarnacion Pascual, sister-in-law of Atty. Prudencio S. Penticostes (complainant) was sued for non-remittance of SSS payments. !e complaint was

assi"ned to Prosecutor #iosdado S. I$a%e& (respondent) for preliminary in'esti"ation.

In t!e course of t!e in'esti"ation, Encarnacion Pascual "a'e P1,8. to respondent as payment of !er SSS contri$ution in arrears. *ut respondent did no

remit t!e amount and t!e fact of non-payment was certified to $y t!e SSS on +cto$er , 1989.

+'er a year later, complainant filed wit! t!e arlac a complaint for professional misconduct a"ainst I$a%e& due to t!e latter/s failure to remit t!e SSS

contri$utions of !is sister-in-law. It alle"ed t!at respondent/s misappropriation of Encarnacion Pascual/s SSS contri$utions amounted to a 'iolation of !is oat!

as a lawyer. Se'en days later, or on 0o'em$er , 199, respondent paid P1,8. to t!e SSS on $e!alf of Encarnacion Pascual.

In t!e meantime, t!e case was referred to t!e I*P-arlac !apter, t!e court o$ser'in" t!at it !ad no competence to recei'e e'idence on t!e matter. 2pon

receipt of t!e case, t!e arlac !apter forwarded t!e same to I*P/s ommission on *ar #iscipline.

In !is defense, respondent claimed t!at !is act of accommodatin" Encarnacion Pascual/s re3uest to ma4e payment to t!e SSS did not amount to professiona

misconduct $ut was rat!er an act of !ristian c!arity. 5urt!ermore, !e claimed t!at t!e action was moot and academic, t!e amount of P1,8. !a'in"

already $een paid $y !im to t!e SSS. 6astly, !e disclaimed lia$ility on t!e "round t!at t!e acts complained were not done $y !im in !is capacity as a practicin"

lawyer $ut on account of !is office as a prosecutor.

+n Septem$er , 1998, t!e ommission recommended t!at t!e respondent $e reprimanded, wit! a warnin" t!at t!e commission of t!e same or similar offense

would $e dealt wit! more se'erely in t!e future. +n 0o'em$er 7, 1998, t!e *oard of o'ernors of t!e I*P adopted and appro'ed its ommission/s

recommendation.

Iss#e" +0 espondent/s non-remittance of t!e funds comin" from Encarnacion Pascual constitutes misconduct.

$e%&" 'es

S adopted I*P/s recommendation and found respondent "uilty of professional misconduct. !ile t!ere is no dou$t t!at payment of t!e contested amount !ad

$een effected to t!e SSS on 0o'em$er , 199, it is clear !owe'er, t!at t!e same was made only after a complaint !ad $een filed a"ainsrespondent. 5urt!ermore, t!e duties of a pro'incial prosecutor do not include recei'in" money from persons wit! official transactions wit! !is office.

!e ourt !as repeatedly admonis!ed lawyers t!at a !i"! sense of morality, !onesty and fair dealin" is e:pected and re3uired of a mem$er of t!e $ar. ule

1.1 of t!e ode of Professional esponsi$ility pro'ides t!at ;

It is "larin"ly clear t!at respondent/s non-remittance for o'er one year of t!e funds comin" from Encarnacion Pascual constitutes conduct in "ross 'iolation of

t!e a$o'e canon. !e $elated payment of t!e same to t!e SSS does not e:cuse !is misconduct. !ile Pascual may not strictly $e considered a client orespondent, t!e rules relatin" to a lawyer/s !andlin" of funds of a client is applica$le.

In Daroy v. Legaspi, it was !eld t!at ;(t)!e relation $etween an attorney and !is client is !i"!ly fiduciary in nature...