FACTS:

Attorney Ricardo Salomon filed a complaint against Attorney Joselito Frial before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for alleged violation of the Lawyer's Oath and/or gross misconduct. The complaint arose from Attorney Frial's handling of two vehicles that were attached in a civil case. According to Attorney Salomon, instead of depositing the attached cars in the court premises, the attaching sheriff relinquished custody of the vehicles to Attorney Frial, who was representing his client Lucy Lo. The complainant claimed that unauthorized individuals were seen using the Nissan Sentra, one of the attached cars, on several occasions. He also accused Attorney Frial of intentionally withholding information about the location of the other attached car, a Volvo.

In response, Attorney Frial admitted that he took custody of the vehicles without court authorization, stating that they were infested with rats and damaged when he inspected them. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline identified two main issues to be resolved: whether Attorney Frial used the cars for his personal benefit and whether he was guilty of failing to faithfully uphold the custody of the attached properties. The Commission's report, based on presented affidavits and evidence, confirmed that the Nissan Sentra had been observed being used by other individuals, and Attorney Frial himself admitted that it had been fueled on certain occasions. The report also mentioned that the Volvo was destroyed by fire without prompt notice given to the court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Atty. Frial used the cars for his personal benefit.

2. Whether or not Atty. Frial was guilty of infidelity in the custody of the attached properties.

RULING:

1. The Court held that Atty. Frial did not use the cars for his personal benefit and was not guilty of infidelity in the custody of the attached properties. The Court considered the findings in the Report of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, which concluded that Atty. Frial was not seen driving the cars and that there were plausible explanations for their sightings in different locations. The Court also noted that Atty. Frial admitted that the cars were infested with rats and gnawed by them, providing a reasonable explanation for their condition.

PRINCIPLES:

• A lawyer should not use the property of his client for his personal benefit, as it constitutes a violation of the Lawyer's Oath.

• In determining whether a lawyer is guilty of infidelity in the custody of properties, the Court will consider the circumstances and explanations provided by the lawyer.