Junio v Grupo

Facts:

Rosario Junio entrusted to Atty. Salvador Grupo, P25,000 to be used in the redemption of a property in Bohol. For no reason at all, Atty. Grupo did not redeem the property so the property was forfeited. Because of this, Junio wanted the money back but Grupo refused to refund. Instead, Grupo requested that he use the money to help defray his children’s educational expenses. It was a personal request to which Grupo executed a PN. He maintains that the family of the Junio and Grupo were very close since Junio’s sisters served as Grupo’s household helpers for many years. Grupo also stated that the basis of his rendering legal services was purely gratuitous or “an act of a friend for a friend” with “consideration involved.” He concluded that there was no atty-client relationship existing between them.

The case was referred to the IBP and found Grupo liable for violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of Profesisonal Responsibility which forbids lawyers from borrowing money from their clients. The IBP Board of Governors recommended that he be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. Grupo filed a motion for reconsideration.

Issue:

Whether or not there was an atty-client relationship.

Held:

Yes. If a person, in respect to his business affairs, consults with an attorney in his professional capacity and the attorney voluntarily permits in such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established.

Having gained dominance over Junio by virtue of such long relation of master and servant, Grupo took advantage of his influence by not returning the money. Grupo has committed an act which falls short of the standard conduct of an attorney. If an ordinary borrower of money is required by law to repay his loan, it is more so in the case of a lawyer whose conduct serves as an example.

*SC orders Grupo suspended from the practice of law for a month and to pay Junio within 30 days with interest at the legal rate.
* Note: 5 yrs. has already passed since the loan.