EN BANC
A.C. No. 14000 [Formerly CBD Case No. 22-6705], July 08, 2025
NANETTE S. TUAZON, PETITIONER,
vs.
ATTY. DARYL DELA* CRUZ, RESPONDENT.
CONCURRING OPINION
LEONEN, SAJ.:
The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary—one that is built on utmost fidelity and good faith.1 This relationship is not merely transactional, as the client, in engaging the services of a lawyer, entrusts not only their properties or livelihood, but often their future. Breaking the trust which forms the core of this relationship must be meted with grave punishment. To do otherwise would trivialize its sanctity.
In the present case, not only did respondent Atty. Daryl A. Dela Cruz spend the money for his personal gains, he also repeatedly lied to his client, petitioner Nanette S. Tuazon, about having already renewed her bail bond. Petitioner would have never known about the misappropriation had she not gone to the court personally to ask if her bail bond had been paid. She then had no choice at that point but to borrow money again just so she could settle the bail bond herself.2
It is fortunate that petitioner was circumspect in personally inquiring with the court about the status of her case after she became suspicious of respondent.3 Had she not been proactive, it could have cost her her liberty. However, she should not even have to go that far to protect her rights, as she had trusted respondent to champion them.
Misappropriation of a client's funds is a serious offense under Section 33(g) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (Code), punishable by one or a combination of the following: (1) disbarment; (2) suspension from the practice of law for a period exceeding six months; (3) revocation of notarial commission and disqualification as notary public for not less than two years; or (4) a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00.4
In Celaje v. Atty. Soriano,5 Atty. Santiago Soriano misappropriated PHP 5,800.00 of his client's funds by lying about having to pay an injunction bond. In punishing him with a two-year suspension, this Court held that misappropriation is "a gross violation of general morality and of professional ethics and impairs public confidence in the legal profession which deserves punishment."6
The amount misappropriated in Celaje was less than what is involved in this case, and the offense was not compounded by any other violations of the Code. The payment of the injunction bond in that case was also deemed unnecessary because the writ it was supposed to be posted for had already been denied.7
Thus, a harsher penalty is appropriate when the amount given in trust is larger and when the misappropriation is compounded by other violations of the Code. Further, in this case, there was a real necessity to pay the bail bond as it could have jeopardized the client's liberty had it not been paid. The fact that respondent chose to ignore this pressing concern and continued to repeatedly lie to his client aggravates his offense.
ACCORDINGLY, for the serious offense of misappropriating his client's funds, compounded by the less serious offenses of simple negligence and unjustifiable failure to render accounting of the client's funds, punishable under Canon VI, Sections 33(g), 34(b), and 34(n) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, I vote that respondent Atty. Daryl A. Dela Cruz be meted out the penalty of a THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION from the practice of law.
Footnotes
1 Palencia v. Atty. Linsangan, 836 Phil. 1 (2019) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
2 Rollo, pp. 48-50.
3 Id.
4 CODE OF PROF. RESPONSIBILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY, sec. 37(a).
5 561 Phil. 341 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, En Banc].
6 Id. at 347.
7 Id. at 343.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
