GAERLAN, J.:
In compliance with the letter, Atty. Tajanlangit made several payments to suppliers in the total amount of PHP 208,000.00. Apart from this, Atty. Tajanlangit also made payments directly to Villagracia, who was handling the funds for the construction of the house, in the amount of PHP 40,000.00, and to Villafuerte, in the amount of PHP 51,000.00.[10] All these payments are evidenced by deposit slips, checks, cash payment vouchers, and acknowledgement receipts.[11]April 28, 2006
Dear Atty. Tajanlangit,
This is to remind you of the cash advance/loan that you have obtain [sic] from Babe Mae Villafuerte with my prior approval in the amount of P300,000.00.
Presently, I have several payables or obligations incurred while in the process of constructing the house of Babe Mae.
I hope that you can settle the above stated obligation even on installment basis as soon as possible.
Thank you and in behalf of Babe Mae Villafuerte.Truly yours,
[signed]
LEONILA VILLAGRACIA[9]
Under the circumstances, it is respectfully recommended that the respondent be REPRIMANDED for having violated the prohibitions contained in Rule 16.04 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.The IBP-CBD found that there exists a lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Tajanlangit and Villafuerte, and that the former violated the CPR, considering that Atty. Tajanlangit himself admitted that he borrowed money from Villafuerte.[22] The IBP-CBD noted that such act is explicitly prohibited under Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, which provides:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.[21]
Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's interest are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.Nonetheless, considering that it was proven that Atty. Tajanlangit had already settled and paid all his obligations, the IBP-CBD found it fair to only impose the penalty of reprimand.[23]
Aggrieved by the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution, Atty. Tajanlangit filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[26] where he argued that there was no lawyer-client relationship between him and Villafuerte, and even assuming that there was, the penalty of suspension of a period of three months is excessive. However, in its Resolution[27] dated April 29, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors denied Atty. Tajanlangit's Motion for Reconsideration.RESOLUTION NO. XXI-2014-722RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-titled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and for borrowing money from his client which act is in violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Cezar Rubit Tajanlangit, is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months.[25] (Emphases and italics in the original)
CBD Case No.12-3555
(Adm. Case No. 7619)
Babe [Mae] Villafuerte vs.
Atty. Cezar Rubit Tajanlangit
. . . A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment complainant asked respondent for legal advice regarding the farmer's business. To constitute professional employment, it is not essential that the client employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward handle the case for which his service had been sought.Moreover, in Zamora v. Gallanosa,[30] the Court reiterated that a lawyer-client relationship exists once a person seeks professional advice and assistance from a lawyer, considering that rendering advice to clients, in any matter which is connected with the law, is already engaging in the practice of law:
If a person, in respect to business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the consultation, then the professional employment is established.
Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding the close personal relationship between the lawyer and the complainant or the nonpayment of the former's fees. . .[29] (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
In this case, respondent admitted having met complainant (albeit under different circumstances as claimed by complainant), advised the latter to see her in her office so they can discuss her husband's labor case, and prepared the position paper for the case, all of which constitute practice of law. Case law states that the "practice of law" means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Thus, to engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by members of the legal procession requiring use of legal knowledge or skill, and embraces, among others: (a) the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings; (b) the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts; and (c) advising clients, and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law, where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions.In this case, records show that Villafuerte sought the assistance of Atty. Tajanlangit to process, facilitate, and render advice in relation to her claim of death benefits. Atty. Tajanlangit also admitted that he helped and guided Villafuerte through the whole process. Clearly, in agreeing to facilitate the transaction in behalf of Villafuerte, Atty. Tajanlangit engaged in the practice of law because aiding and representing Villafuerte in her claim for death benefits required having legal knowledge in order prove her entitlement to the same and to process the release thereof. Thus, from the moment Atty. Tajanlangit agreed to help Villafuerte to pursue her claim, a lawyer-client relationship was formed.
A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment respondent discussed with complainant the labor case of her husband and advised her as to what legal course of action should be pursued therein. By respondent's acquiescence with the consultation and her drafting of the position paper which was thereafter submitted in the case, a professional employment was established between her and complainant. To constitute professional employment, it is not essential that the client employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion, or that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged. The fact that one is, at the end of the day, not inclined to handle the client's case, or that no formal professional engagement follows the consultation, or no contract whatsoever was executed by the parties to memorialize the relationship is hardly of consequence. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession.[31] (Emphases supplied; citations omitted)
Section 52. Prohibition on Lending and Borrowing; Exceptions. — During the existence of the lawyer-client relationship, a lawyer shall not lend money to a client, except under urgent and justifiable circumstances. Advances for professional fees and necessary expenses in a legal matter the lawyer is handling for a client shall not be covered by this rule.In Buenaventura v. Atty. Gille,[33] citing Yu v. Atty. Dela Cruz,[34] the Court exhaustively explained why the act of borrowing money from a client calls for the imposition of disciplinary sanction, thus:
Neither shall a lawyer borrow money from a client during the existence of the lawyer-client relationship, unless the client's interests are fully protected by the nature of the case, or by independent advice. This rule does not apply to standard commercial transactions for products or services that the client offers to the public in general, or where the lawyer and the client have an existing or prior business relationship, or where there is a contract between the lawyer and the client.
Indeed, the act of borrowing money from a client by a lawyer is highly uncalled for and therefore a ground for disciplinary action. It degrades a client's trust and confidence in his or her lawyer. This trust and confidence must be upheld at all times in accordance with a lawyer's duty to his or her client. As aptly stated in Yu v. Dela Cruz:Likewise, in Domingo v. Sacdalan,[36] the Court pronounced that borrowing money from clients is prohibited because it is considered as abuse of a client's confidence, to wit:Complainant voluntarily and willingly delivered her jewelry worth P135,000.00 to respondent lawyer who meant to borrow it and pawn it thereafter. This act alone shows respondent lawyer's blatant disregard of Rule 16.04. Complainant's acquiescence to the "pawning" of her jewelry becomes immaterial considering that the CPR is clear in that lawyers are proscribed from borrowing money or property from clients, unless the latter's interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Here, respondent lawyer's act of borrowing does not constitute an exception. Respondent lawyer used his client's jewelry in order to obtain, and then appropriate for himself, the proceeds from the pledge. In so doing, he had abused the trust and confidence reposed upon him by his client. That he might have intended to subsequently pay his client the value of the jewelry is inconsequential. What deserves detestation was the very act of his exercising influence and persuasion over his client in order to gain undue benefits from the latter's property. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and confidence. And as true as any natural tendency goes, this "trust and confidence" is prone to abuse. The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over his client. The rule presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer's ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation. Suffice it to say, the borrowing of money or property from a client outside the limits laid down in the CPR is an unethical act that warrants sanction.[35] (Emphasis in the original; citations omitted)
It must be underscored that borrowing money from a client is prohibited under Rule 16.04. A lawyer's act of asking a client for a loan, as what respondent did, is very unethical. It comes within those acts considered as abuse of client's confidence. The canon presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer's ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his or her obligation. Unless the client's interests are fully protected, a lawyer must never borrow money from his or her client.[37] (Citation omitted)Given the foregoing, and despite the settlement of his debts, Atty. Tajanlangit committed unethical conduct and violated the CPRA which warrant disciplinary sanctions.
x x x x[39] Section 37(b), Canon VI of the CPRA.
(f) Prohibited borrowing of money from a client;
x x x x.