SOLIMAN V.

LERIOS-AMBOY
Canon 16, 17, and 18

FACTS:

Soliman filed a complaint against Amboy for violation of CPR.

- Soliman had a retainer agreement with Atty. Lomboy in connection with a partition case.
- Lomboy advised Soliman to no longer institute a partition case since the other co-owners
of the property were amenable to the partition thereof. Lomboy facilitated the issuance of
the titles from the co-owners to the individual owners.
- However, there was delay in the issuance of the titles. Atty. Lomboy told Soliman that
someone from the Register of Deeds can help expedite the issuance of the titles for a
fee of 80,000 which was later reduced to 50,000, which Soliman paid. There was further
delay and Atty. Lomboy asked an additional 10,000 for the release of the titles. This time
Soliman refused to pay.
- Soliman and Lomboy’s secretary went to Atty. Marasigan, the RD of Manila, to which the
latter denied having received 50,000 and that the delay was due to failure of Lomboy to
file certain documents.
- Soliman further alleged that Lomboy refused to release pertinent documents she gave to
the latter for the processing of titles and to return the 50,000.
Lomboy’s Defense:
- Admitted retainer’s agreement but alleged that it was not implemented since the partition
case was not instituted and that she merely undertook to gather the documents for the
release of the titles
- Denied having asked 50,000 to facilitate release of the titles
IBP’s Decision
- Suspended Lomboy for 2 years and 6 months

ISSUE:
WON Lomboy is guilty of violating the CPR?

RULING: YES. SC affirms penalty and ordered the return of the 50,000 plus interests.

Canon 17: “The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly states that a lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and that he should be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him.”
Canon 18 (Rules 18.03 and 18.04): “A lawyer is mandated to serve his client with
competence and diligence; to never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; and to keep his
client informed of the status of his case and respond within a reasonable time to the client's
request for information.”

- ITCAB, after receiving the 25,000 as professional fees, Lomboy failed to submit material
documents relative to the issuance of the titles because of her negligence. To make
matters worse, Lomboy abetted the commission of an illegal act when she asked 50,000
from Soliman to be paid to her “contract” inside the RD in order to facilitate the release of
the titles. Despite the payment, Lomboy still failed to obtain the issuance of the titles and
even asked Soliman for additional 10k. This is not a simple case of negligence and
incompetence by a counsel in dealing with a client.
 Canon 16 (Rule 16.03): A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client upon
demand. It is settled that the unjustified withholding of money belonging to a client warrants the
imposition of disciplinary action.

- ITCAB, Lomboy violated Canon 16 in not returning the 50,000 to Soliman after a
demand was made following her failure to procure the issuance of the certificates of title.