Canon 16 Full

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

1/39

ANDREA BALCE CELAJE, A.C. No. 7418

Complainant,

Members:

PUNO, C.J.

QUISUMBING,

YNARESSAN!IAGO,

SAN"O#A$GU!IERRE%, CARPIO,

AUS!RIAMAR!INE%,

CORONA,

&ers's CARPIOMORA$ES,

A%CUNA,

!INGA,

C(ICONA%ARIO,

GARCIA,

#E$ASCO, )r., NAC(URA, and

REYES,JJ.

Prom'l*ate+:

ATTY. SANTIAGO C. SORIANO, Otober -, //0

Respon+ent. 1 1

R E S O L U T I O N

AUS!RIAMAR!INE%,J.

Be2ore t3is Co'rt is a +isbarment ase 2ile+ a*ainst Att4. Santia*o C. Soriano 5respon+ent6

2or *ross mison+'t.

In t3e Complaint +ate+ )'ne 7, //8 2ile+ be2ore t3e Inte*rate+ Bar o2 t3e P3ilippines

5IBP6, An+rea Bale Cela9e 5omplainant6 alle*e+ t3at respon+ent ase+ 2or mone4 to be p't 'pas an in9'ntion bon+, ;3i3 omplainant 2o'n+ o't later, 3o;e&er, to be 'nneessar4 as t3e

appliation 2or t3e ;rit ;as +enie+ b4 t3e trial o'rt. Respon+ent also ase+ 2or mone4 on

se&eral oasions alle*e+l4 to spen+ 2or or to be *i&en to t3e 9'+*e 3an+lin* t3eir ase, )'+*e

Mila*ros Q'i9ano, o2 t3e Re*ional !rial Co'rt, Iri*a Cit4,Bran3 3en omplainant

approa3e+ )'+*e Q'i9ano an+ ase+ ;3et3er ;3at respon+ent ;as sa4in* ;as tr'e

)'+*e Q'i9ano o'tri*3tl4 +enie+ t3e alle*ations an+ a+&ise+ 3er to 2ile an a+ministrati&e ase

a*ainst respon+ent.?7@

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

2/39

In 3is Ans;er, respon+ent +enie+ t3e 3ar*es a*ainst 3im an+ a&erre+ t3at t3e same ;ere

merel4 onote+ b4 omplainant to +estro4 3is 3arater. (e also onten+e+ t3at it ;as

omplainant ;3o boaste+ t3at s3e is a pro2essional 2i1er in a+ministrati&e a*enies as ;ell as in

t3e 9'+iiar4 an+ t3at omplainant promise+ to pa4 3im lar*e amo'nts o2 attorne4s 2ees ;3i3

omplainant 3o;e&er +i+ not eep.?@

Bot3 parties appeare+ in t3e Man+ator4 Con2erene an+ (earin* on )an'ar4 7

//=. !3erea2ter, t3e ase ;as s'bmitte+ 2or +eision.?3at 3as been +o'mente+ onl4 pertains to t3e 'npai+ P8,//.// inten+e+ 2or

t3e in9'ntion bon+. (o;e&er, it 3as been establis3e+ t3at in+ee+ an a'm'late+

amo'nt o2 P-,///.//3as been remitte+ b4 Respon+ent to #alentina Ramos an+ o"l0

#-e ("&!$ P,8. rem&!"s ("&))o("#e$ %or *0 #-e Reso"$e"#.

"'rin* t3e 3earin* on+'te+, Complainant reiterate+ 3er a'sations a*ainst

t3e Respon+ent an+ e1presse+ t3at s3e 3as been a**rie&e+ an+ misle+ b4 Respon+ent.

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

3/39

Aor+in* to Complainant, t3is ;as ma+e possible bea'se s-e &s "o# &&re o% or

3"ole$/e&*le o" le/&l m#ers &"$ r&)#!)es. Respon+ent 3as onl4 o22ere+ +enials

to t3e 3ar*es. (o;e&er, t3eir'mstanes *i&es re+ibilit4 to 3erein Complainant in

t3e absene o2 an4 e&il moti&e on 3er part.

Aor+in*l4, Respon+ent is learl4 *'ilt4 o2 misappropriating his clients

funds!" #-e &mo("# o% P,8.. >3ile ot3er amo'nts ma4 3a&e been

misappropriate+, Complainant alle*es P0/,///.//, t3e e1atness o2 t3e amo'ntso'l+ not be establis3e+.

Respon+ent is also *'ilt4 o2 $e)e!!"/ -!s )l!e"#an+ ab'sin* 3is lients

on2i+ene !" re(es#!"/ %or seer&l &mo("#s o% mo"e0 o" #-e re#e"se #- -e

-&$ #o se"$ %or &"$ &0 #-e #r!&l '($/e.

Respon+ent is 3ereb4 OR"ERE" to imme+iatel4 +eli&er t3e 'nao'nte+ 2or

amo'nt o2 i&e !3o'san+ Ei*3t ('n+re+ Pesos 5P8,//.//6 to Complainant,

s'bmittin* a Compliane Report t3ereon.?8@

On September , //=, t3e Boar+ o2 Go&ernors o2 t3e IBP passe+ a Resol'tion t3's:

RESOLVED to ADOP and Appro!e" as it is here#$ ADOPED and

APPROVED" with modification" the Report and Recommendation of the %n!estigating

Commissioner of the a#o!e&entitled case" herein made part of this Resolution as Anne'

(A&) and" finding the recommendation full$ supported #$ the e!idence on record and

the applica#le la*s and rules" and considering that Respondent is guilt$ of gross

misconduct for misappropriating his clients funds" Att$. Santiago C. Soriano is

here#$SUSPENDEDfrom the practice of la* for t*o +,- $ears and lie*ise Orderedto immediatel$ deli!er that unaccounted amount of P/"011.11 to complainant.?=@

!3e IBP transmitte+ t3e Notie o2 Resol'tion iss'e+ b4 t3e IBP Boar+ o2 Go&ernors as

;ell as t3e reor+s o2 t3e ase, p'rs'ant to R'le 7

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

4/39

As 2o'n+ b4 Commissioner 'na, it ;as establis3e+ t3at respon+ent o'l+ not ao'nt

2or P8,//.// ;3i3 ;as part o2 t3e s'm *i&en b4 omplainant to 3im 2or t3e p'rpose o2 2ilin*

an in9'nti&e bon+. Respon+ent a+mitte+ 3a&in* reei&e+ 2rom omplainant P70,//.// on

April 7-, // 2or t3e preliminar4 in9'ntion ?7/@an+ a+mitte+ to 3a&in* a balane o2 P-,///.//

in 3is promissor4 note to t3e Manila Ins'rane Co., In. +ate+ April

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

5/39

Respon+ent is 2'rt3er or+ere+ to restit'te to 3is lients t3ro'*3 An+rea Bale Cela9e

;it3in

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

6/39

REYNARIA

BARCENAS,

Complainant,

- versus -

ATTY. ANORLITO A. ALVERO,

Respondent.

A.C. No. 8159

(formerly CBD 05-

15!"

#re$e%&'

PUNO, C.J.,

CARPIO,

CORONA,

CARPIO MORALES,

VELASCO R.,

NAC!URA,

LEONAR"O-"E

CAS#RO,

$RION,

PERAL#A,

$ERSAMIN,

"EL CAS#ILLO,

A$A",

VILLARAMA, R.,

MEN"O%A and

PERE%,JJ.

#roml)*&e+'

April &', &()(

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

7/39

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-

DECISION

#ERALTA, J.'

Be2ore 's is a Complaint?7@+ate+ Ma4 70, //8 2or +isiplinar4 ation a*ainst respon+ent

Att4. Anorlito A. Al&ero 2ile+ b4 Re4naria Barenas ;it3 t3e Inte*rate+ Bar o2 t3e P3ilippinesCommission on Bar "isipline 5IBPCB"6, +oete+ as CB" Case No. /87D8, no;

A+ministrati&e Case 5A.C.6 No. 78-.

!3e 2ats as 'lle+ 2rom t3e reor+s are as 2ollo;s:

On Ma4 0, //D, Barenas, t3ro'*3 3er emplo4ee Ro+ol2o San Antonio 5San Antonio6,

entr'ste+ to Att4. Al&ero t3e amo'nt o2 P

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

8/39

In 3is letters +ate+ A'*'st 7, //D?D@an+ A'*'st 8, //D,?8@Att4. Att4. Al&ero a+mitte+

t3e reeipt o2 t3e P

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

9/39

(o;e&er, as o2 t3e 2ilin* o2 t3e instant omplaint, +espite repeate+ +eman+s, Att4. Al&ero

2aile+ to ret'rn t3e same. !3's, Barenas pra4e+ t3at Att4. Al&ero be +isbarre+ 2or bein* a

+is*rae to t3e le*al pro2ession.

On Mar3

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

10/39

ng papel dahil tu#usan $an" ung saaling ipatu#os a$ nasa orte na ang pera.4 Belie&in* t3at

it ;as t3e tr't3, San Antonio ;as 2ore+ to borro; mone4 2rom Barenas in t3e amo'nt

o2 P

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

11/39

A re&ie; o2 Anne1 7, ;3i3 in t3e Amen+e+ Petition +ate+ Otober

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

12/39

CANON 1.

A LAYER SALL /#OLD TE CONSTIT/TION, OBEY

TE LAS O TE LAND AND #ROOTE RES#ECT OR LA

AND LE2AL #ROCESS.

Rle 1.01. A la31er s+all not enae in unla3/ul, dis+onest,

immoral or deeit/ul ondut.

CANON 13.

A LAYER SALL OLD IN TR/ST ALL ONEYS AND

#RO#ERTIES O IS CLIENT TAT AY COE INTO IS

#OSSESSION.

Rle 13.01. A la31er s+all aount /or all mone1 or propert1

olleted or reeived /or or /rom t+e lient.

Rle 13.0!. A la31er s+all 5eep t+e /unds o/ ea+ lient

separate and apart /rom +is o3n and t+ose o/ ot+ers 5ept 01 +im.Rle 13.04. A la31er s+all deliver t+e /unds and propert1 o/

+is lient 3+en due or upon demand. !o3ever, +e s+all +ave a lien

over t+e /unds and ma1 appl1 so mu+ t+ereo/ as ma1 0e neessar1

to satis/1 +is unla3/ul /ees and dis0ursements, ivin notie

promptl1 t+erea/ter to +is lient. !e s+all also +ave a lien to t+e

same e6tent on all 7udments and e6eutions +e +as seured /or +is

lient as provided /or in t+e Rules o/ Court.

In t+e instant ase, Att1. Alvero admitted to +avin reeived t+e

amount o/ P'((,(((.(( /rom San Antonio, speiall1 /or t+e purpose o/

depositin it in ourt. !o3ever, as /ound 01 t+e I$P-C$", Att1. Alvero

presented no evidene t+at +e +ad indeed deposited t+e amount in or

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

13/39

onsined it to t+e ourt. Neit+er 3as t+ere an1 evidene t+at +e +ad

returned t+e amount to $arenas or San Antonio.

8rom t+e reords o/ t+e ase, t+ere is li5e3ise a lear 0rea+ o/ la31er-

lient relations. *+en a la31er reeives mone1 /rom a lient /or a partiular

purpose, t+e la31er is 0ound to render an aountin to t+e lient s+o3int+at t+e mone1 3as spent /or a partiular purpose. And i/ +e does not use

t+e mone1 /or t+e intended purpose, t+e la31er must immediatel1 return

t+e mone1 to +is lient.9):; #+ese, Att1. Alvero /ailed to do.

urisprudene ditates t+at a la31er 3+o o0tains possession o/ t+e

/unds and properties o/ +is lient in t+e ourse o/ +is pro/essional

emplo1ment s+all deliver t+e same to +is lient

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

14/39

Se. &:. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme

Court, grounds therefor. - A mem0er o/ t+e 0ar ma1 0e dis0arred or

suspended /rom +is o@e as attorne1 01 t+e Supreme Court /or an1

deeit, malpratie, or ot+er ross misondut in su+ o@e, rossl1

immoral ondut, or 01 reason o/ +is onvition o/ a rime involvin

moral turpitude, or /or an1 violation o/ t+e oat+ 3+i+ +e is reBuired

to ta5e 0e/ore t+e admission to pratie, or /or a 3ill/ul diso0edieneappearin as attorne1 /or a part1 3it+out aut+orit1 to do so.

*e ome to t+e penalt1 imposa0le in t+is ase.

In Small v. Banares,9&);t+e respondent 3as suspended /or t3o 1ears

/or violatin Canon )2 o/ t+e Code o/ Pro/essional Responsi0ilit1, partiularl1/or /ailin to le a ase /or 3+i+ t+e amount o/ P?(,(((.(( 3as iven +im

01 t+e lient, and /or /ailin to return t+e said amount upon demand.

Considerin t+at similar irumstanes are attendant in t+is ase, t+e Court

nds t+e Resolution o/ t+e I$P imposin on respondent a t3o-1ear

suspension to 0e in order.

As a nal note, 3e reiterate4 t+e pratie o/ la3 is not a ri+t, 0ut a

privilee. It is ranted onl1 to t+ose o/ ood moral +arater. #+e $ar must

maintain a +i+ standard o/ +onest1 and /air dealin.9&&;

8or t+e pratie o/la3 is a pro/ession, a /orm o/ pu0li trust, t+e per/ormane o/ 3+i+ is

entrusted to t+ose 3+o are Bualied and 3+o possess ood moral +arater.

#+ose 3+o are una0le or un3illin to ompl1 3it+ t+e responsi0ilities and

meet t+e standards o/ t+e pro/ession are un3ort+1 o/ t+e privilee to

pratie la3.9&';

EREORE,Notie o/ Resolution No. VIII-&((?-'D& dated ul1 ):,

&((? o/ t+e I$P-C$" $oard o/ overnors, 3+i+ /ound respondent Att1.

Anorlito A. Alvero2/ILTYo/ ross misondut, is AIRED. !e is

+ere01 S/S#ENDED /or a period o/ t3o

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

15/39

Let a op1 o/ t+is "eision 0e /urnis+ed to t+e O@e o/ t+e $ar

Condant, to 0e appended to t+e personal reord o/ Att1. Alvero as a

mem0er o/ t+e $arG t+e Interated $ar o/ t+e P+ilippinesG and t+e O@e o/

t+e Court Administrator /or irulation to all ourts in t+e ountr1 /or t+eir

in/ormation and uidane.

#+is "eision s+all 0e immediatel1 e6eutor1.

SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 6651 February 27, 2006

EDUARDO P. MENESES,Complainant,vs.

ATTY. RODOLFO P. MACALNO, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CARPO, J.:

T!e Ca"e

This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Eduardo . !eneses "#complainant#$ a%ainst &tty. Rodolfo . !acalino

"#respondent#$ for violation of the la'yer(s oath.

T!e Fa#$"

Complainant alle%ed that sometime in !arch )**+, respondent offered his le%al services to complainant to help

secure the release of complainant(s car from the ureau of Customs. Respondent proposed to handle the case for a

#pac-a%e deal# of /,///. Complainant a%reed and initially %ave respondent )/,/// for processin% of the papers.

In 0une )**+, respondent as-ed for +/,/// to e1pedite the release of the car. In both instances, respondent did

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

16/39

not issue a receipt but promised to furnish complainant 'ith a receipt from the ureau of Customs. Since then,

respondent failed to %ive complainant an update on the matter.

Complainant repeatedly 'ent to respondent(s house to in2uire on the status of the release of the car. Complainant

'as al'ays told that respondent 'as not around and to 3ust return another day. This 'ent on for more than a year.

In &pril )**4, complainant 'ent to the National ureau of Investi%ation "#NI#$ to file a complaint for estafa a%ainst

respondent.)The NI set the complaint for investi%ation on 56 &pril )**4.

Respondent 'rote a letter5to the NI dated 5 &pril )**4, re2uestin% for postponement of the investi%ation to )5

!ay )**4. Respondent stated in his letter that he 'ould settle the matter amicably 'ith complainant and return

the 4/,///. Respondent failed to appear for the investi%ation scheduled on )5 !ay )**4.

Respondent sent another letter+to the NI dated 5+ !ay )**4, re2uestin% for the suspension of the proceedin%s

because he had partially settled the case. Respondent attached the ac-no'led%ment receipt4si%ned by

complainant representin% the partial refund of 5/,///. Respondent promised to pay the balance on or before 7

0une )**4. 8o'ever, respondent did not pay the balance. The NI set the complaint for investi%ation t'ice and

subpoenaed respondent but he failed to appear.

On 55 0anuary )**, the NI, throu%h Director !ariano !. !ison, found insufficient evidence to prosecuterespondent for estafa. Nevertheless, the NI advised complainant to file a complaint for disbarment a%ainst

respondent.9

On +/ &pril )**, complainant filed a verified complaintfor disbarment a%ainst respondent 'ith the Commission on

ar Discipline "#Commission#$ of the Inte%rated ar of the hilippines "#I#$. Complainant char%ed respondent 'ith

failure to render le%al services, failure to refund balance of le%al fees, and failure to apprise the complainant of the

status of the case : all in violation of the la'yer(s oath of office.

In an Order6dated 5+ 0uly )**7, Investi%atin% Commissioner !a. Carmina !. &le3andro;&bbas "#Commissioner

&bbas#$ ordered respondent to submit his ans'er to the complaint. Respondent 'as also 'arned that if he failed to

file an ans'er, the Commission 'ould consider him in default and the case 'ould be heard ex-parte. &lthou%h hereceived the Order, respondent failed to file an ans'er.

The case 'as set for initial hearin% on 6 !ay 5//5. Despite receipt of the notice of hearin%, respondent failed to

appear. Complainant 'as present and he informed Commissioner &bbas that he had previously filed a complaint for

estafa a%ainst respondent 'ith the NI. Commissioner &bbas then issued a subpoena duces tecumto !r. raud &ction Division of the NI for the case folder and all

the documents pertainin% to the complaint.7!r. Emil Re3ano, a confidential a%ent of the NI, submitted all the

documents durin% the hearin% on 5* 0uly 5//5.*

>urther hearin%s 'ere scheduled for 56 0une 5//5, 5* 0uly 5//5, * September 5//5, 7 October 5//5 and 9

November 5//5. Despite due notice, respondent failed to appear on these dates.

On )7 &u%ust 5//4, Investi%atin% Commissioner Dennis &. . >una "#Commissioner >una#$, 'ho too- over the

investi%ation, issued an order submittin% the case for decision based on the evidence on record. Respondent(s

failure to file an ans'er and to attend the hearin%s 'ere deemed a 'aiver of his ri%ht to participate in the

proceedin%s and present evidence.)/

T!e %P&" Re'or$ a() Re#o**e()a$+o(lavvph!1.net

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

17/39

The I oard of ?overnors issued CD Resolution No. @AI;5//4;4)4 "#I Resolution#$ dated 6 October 5//4

adoptin% 'ith modification))Commissioner >una(s Report and Recommendation "#Report#$ findin% respondent %uilty

of violatin% the Code of rofessional Responsibility. The I oard of ?overnors recommended the imposition on

respondent of a penalty of one year suspension from the practice of la'. The Report readsB

>rom the records of the case, $!ere +" #eary a brea#! o- ayer/#+e($ rea$+o(". !oreover, respondent hascontinuously e1hibited his adamant refusal to comply 'ith his le%al obli%ations to his client, despite many

opportunities to settle the matter amicably. &%%ravatin% this is respondent(s utter disre%ard of the le%al process

before the NI, choosin% to i%nore notices from the NI in the middle of an investi%ation. In addition, respondenthas continuously disre%arded the 3urisdiction of this Commission. It is clear from the records of the case that

respondent has duly received the orders and notices from this Commission as evidenced by the re%istry return

receipts.

In the absence of any counter;alle%ations from respondent, 'hich is by his o'n doin%, the alle%ations of the

complainant shall stand and be %iven its due credence.)5"Emphasis supplied$

The I oard of ?overnors for'arded the instant case to the Court as provided under Section )5"b$, Rule )+*;

)+of the Rules of Court.

T!e Ru+( o- $!e Cour$

The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon ),)4Rule )./),)9Rule )./+,)and Rule )7./4)6of the

Code of rofessional Responsibility "#Code#$.

Respondent Failed to Inform and to Respond

to Inquiries of the Complainant

Regarding the Status of the Case

The relationship of la'yer;client bein% one of confidence, it is the la'yer(s duty to -eep the client re%ularly and fully

updated on the developments of the client(s case.)7The Code provides that #a la'yer shall -eep the client informed

of the status of his case and shall respond 'ithin a reasonable time to the client(s re2uest for information.#)*

The records sho' that after receivin% 4/,///, respondent 'as never heard of a%ain. Respondent -ept complainant

in the dar- about the status of the release of the car. Only after complainant filed a complaint 'ith the NI did

respondent communicate 'ith complainant. !oreover, it appears that respondent failed to render any le%al service

to facilitate the car(s release. In fact, respondent failed to secure the release of the car. Respondent(s failure to

communicate 'ith complainant 'as an un3ustified denial of complainant(s ri%ht to be fully informed of the status of

the case.5/

Respondent Failed to Account and

Return the Money He Receied from Complainant

The Code mandates that every #la'yer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into

his possession.#5)The Code further states that #a la'yer shall account for all money or property collected or

received for or from the client.#55>urthermore, #a la'yer shall deliver the funds and property of his client 'hen due

and upon demand.#5+

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

18/39

Respondent specifically received the 4/,/// for his le%al services and for the processin% fee to facilitate the

release of complainant(s car. Since respondent failed to render any le%al service to complainant and he also failed to

secure the car(s release, respondent should have promptly accounted for and returned the money to complainant.

ut even after demand, respondent did not return the money. &%ain, respondent 'aited until complainant filed a

complaint 'ith the NI before he refunded the 5/,///. Even then, respondent failed to return the balance

of 5/,/// as he promised.

Respondent(s failure to return the money to complainant upon demand is conduct indicative of lac- of inte%rity and

propriety and a violation of the trust reposed on him.5Respondent(s un3ustified 'ithholdin% of money belon%in% tothe complainant 'arrants the imposition of disciplinary action.56

Respondent Failed to File an Ans!er and

Attend the Hearings "efore the I#$

The Court notes that respondent(s actuation reveals a hi%h de%ree of irresponsibility57and sho's his lac- of respect

for the I and its proceedin%s.5*Respondent(s attitude demonstrates a character 'hich stains the nobility of the

le%al profession.+/

%n the Appropriate $enalty to "e Imposed

on Respondent

The Court finds the penalty recommended by the I to suspend respondent from the practice of la' for one year

'ell;ta-en. >ollo'in% the rulin%s of this Court, those found %uilty of the same or similar acts 'ere suspended for not

less than si1 months from the practice of la'.+)Considerin% respondent(s lac- of prior administrative record,

suspension from the practice of la' for one year, and not disbarment as prayed for by complainant, serves the

purpose of protectin% the interest of the public and the le%al profession. This Court 'ill e1ercise its po'er to disbar

only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affects the standin% and character of the la'yer as an officer of the

court and a member of the bar.+5

EREFORE, 'e find respondent &tty. Rodolfo . !acalino 3ULTYof violation of Canon ), Rule )./), Rule

)./+, and Rule )7./4 of the Code of rofessional Responsibility. &ccordin%ly, 'e SUSPENDrespondent &tty.Rodolfo . !acalino from the practice of la' for one year effective upon finality of this decision. Respondent

isORDERED TO RETURNto complainant, 'ithin +/ days from notice of this decision, the full amount of 5/,///'ith interest at )5 per annum from the date of promul%ation of this decision until full payment. Respondent is

further DRECTEDto submit to the Court proof of payment of the amount 'ithin )9 days from payment.

Fet copies of this decision be furnished the Office of the ar Confidant, to be appended to respondent(s personal

record as attorney. Fi-e'ise, copies shall be furnished to the Inte%rated ar of the hilippines and all courts in the

country for their information and %uidance.

SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 7021 February 21, 2007

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

19/39

MEL4N D. SMALL, Complainant,vs.

ATTY. ERRY %ANARES,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CARPO, J.

T!e Ca"e

This is a complaint for disbarment filed by !elvin D. Small "complainant$ a%ainst &tty. 0erry anares)"respondent$

for failure to render le%al services and to return the money received for his le%al services.

T!e Fa#$"

On +/ &u%ust 5//), complainant en%a%ed the services of respondent in connection 'ith several complaints to be

filed a%ainst one Fyneth &mar "&mar$. Complainant paid respondent 5/,/// as acceptance fee.5

On 4 September 5//), complainant %ave respondent /,/// as filin% fees for the cases a%ainst &mar.+Respondent

then 'rote a demand letter for &mar and tal-ed to &mar on the phone. Respondent also informed complainant thathe 'ould be preparin% the documents for the cases. Complainant consistently communicated 'ith respondent

re%ardin% the status of the cases. ut respondent repeatedly told complainant to 'ait as respondent 'as still

preparin% the documents.

On 9 0anuary 5//5, complainant re2uired respondent to present all the documents respondent had prepared for the

cases a%ainst &mar. Respondent 'as not able to present any document. This prompted complainant to demand for

a full refund of the fees he had paid respondent.4Complainant even hired the services of &tty. Ri=alino Simbillo to

recover the money from respondent. ut respondent failed to return the money. 8ence, complainant filed a case for

disbarment before the Inte%rated ar of the hilippines "I$ a%ainst respondent.

On )9 October 5//4, I Director for ar Discipline Ro%elio &. Ainluan ordered respondent to submit his ans'er tothe complaint. Respondent did not file an ans'er despite receipt of the order.

On 5) 0anuary 5//9, I Investi%atin% Commissioner

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

20/39

In a Resolution dated )5 November 5//9, the I oard of ?overnors adopted and approved the Report. The I

oard of ?overnors for'arded the instant case to the Court as provided under Section )5"b$, Rule )+*;7of the

Rules of Court.

T!e Cour$&" Ru+(

urthermore, a la'yer shall account for all money received from the client and shall deliver the funds

of the client upon demand.)+

In Meneses v. Macalino,)4the Court ruled thatB

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

21/39

Fet copies of this decision be furnished the Office of the ar Confidant, to be appended to respondent(s personal

record as attorney. Fi-e'ise, copies shall be furnished to the Inte%rated ar of the hilippines and all courts in the

country for their information and %uidance.

SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 1526. a(uary 81, 20059

NA:ARA S. ERNANDE: ;DECEASEDearful that the various mort%a%e contracts involvin% her properties 'ill be

foreclosed and a'are of impendin% suits for sums of money a%ainst her, complainant

en%a%ed the le%al services of &tty. 0ose C. ?o, herein respondent.

Respondent instilled in complainant a feelin% of helplessness, fear, embarrassment,

and social humiliation. 8e advised her to %ive him her land titles coverin% Fots 747;&

74*;H, and 74*; at Gamboan%a City so he could sell them to enable her to pay her

creditors. 8e then persuaded her to e1ecute deeds of sale in his favor 'ithout anymonetary or valuable consideration. Complainant a%reed on condition that he 'ould sel

the lots and from the proceeds pay her creditors.

Complainant also o'ned Fots 5))7, 5)+*, and ))4);&, li-e'ise located in Gamboan%a

City, 'hich 'ere mort%a%ed to her creditors.

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

22/39

Sometime in )*64, complainant came to -no' that respondent did not sell her lots as

a%reed upon. Instead, he paid her creditors 'ith his o'n funds and had her land titles

re%istered in his name, deprivin% her of her real properties 'orth millions.

In our Resolution dated September 54, )*69, respondent 'as re2uired to file his

comment on the complaint.

Instead of filin% his comment, respondent submitted a motion to dismiss on the %round

that the complaint is premature since there is pendin% before the then Court of >irst

Instance of Gamboan%a City Civil Case No. )67)5for recovery of o'nership and

declaration of nullity of deeds of sale filed by complainant a%ainst him involvin% the sub3ect

lots.

On November )4, )*69, 'e issued a Resolution denyin% respondent(s motion and

re2uirin% him to submit his ans'er.

In his ans'er dated December )*, )*69, respondent denied the alle%ations in the

instant complaint. 8e averred that he sold, in %ood faith, complainant(s lots to various

buyers, includin% himself, for valuable consideration. On several occasions, he e1tended

financial assistance to complainant and even invited her to live 'ith his family. 8is

children used to call her FolaJ due to her fre2uent visits to his residence. 8e prayed that

the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

On 0anuary )6, )*66, 'e referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor ?eneral "OS?$

for investi%ation, report, and recommendation.

It 'as only on !arch )+, )**/ or after )+ years, ) month and 5 days that the OS?

filed a motion to refer the instant case to the I for the reta-in% of the testimonies of

complainant(s 'itnesses and the submission of its report and recommendation.

On &pril 4, )**/, 'e issued a Resolution referrin% the case to the I for investi%ation

report, and recommendation.

The Report and Recommendation dated 0une )9, 5//4 of &tty. Fydia &. Navarro,

Commissioner of the I Commission on ar Discipline, is 2uoted as follo'sB

A are2'l e1amination an+ e&al'ation o2 t3e e&i+ene s'bmitte+ b4 t3e parties s3o;e+ t3at all t3e

properties o2 t3e omplainant are presentl4 o;ne+ b4 t3e respon+ent b4 &irt'e o2 se&eral +ee+s o2

sale e1e'te+ b4 t3e omplainant in 2a&or o2 t3e respon+ent ;it3o't monetar4 onsi+eration e1ept

$ot D-" sit'ate+ in !omas Cla'+io ;3i3 ;as ret'rne+ b4 t3e respon+ent to t3e omplainant on

September 8, 7-0D.

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

23/39

It is e&i+ent 2rom t3e reor+s t3at respon+ent ;as t3e one ;3o notarie+ t3e +o'ments in&ol&in*

t3e sai+ properties re+eeme+ or rep'r3ase+ b4 t3e omplainant 2rom 3er re+itors ;3i3 en+e+ 'p

in respon+ents name lie in t3e +ee+ o2 sale e1e'te+ b4 #itoriano "e9erano in 2a&or o2 Naaria

(ernan+e o&er $ots 77D7A(EREORE, in &ie; o2 t3e 2ore*oin*, t3e 'n+ersi*ne+ respet2'll4 reommen+s t3at respon+ent

Att4. )ose C. Go be s'spen+e+ 2rom t3e pratie o2 la; 2or a perio+ o2 si1 5=6 mont3s 2rom reeipt

3ereo2 an+ t3e IBP C3apter ;3ere 3e is a re*istere+ member be 2'rnis3e+ a op4 o2 t3e same 2or

implementation 3ereo2, s'b9et to t3e appro&al o2 t3e (onorable Members o2 t3e Boar+ o2

Go&ernors.H

On 0uly +/, 5//4, the I oard of ?overnors passed Resolution No. @AI;5//4;+*

adoptin% and approvin% the Report of Commissioner Navarro 'ith modification in the

sense that the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of la' 'asincreased from si1 "$ months to three "+$ years.

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

24/39

A l&0er s-&ll -ol$ !" #r(s# &ll mo"e0s &"$ roer#!es o% -!s )l!e"# #- m&0 )ome !"#o -!s

ossess!o".9

Respondent breached this Canon. 8is acts of ac2uirin% for himself complainant(s lots

entrusted to him are, by any standard, acts constitutin% %ross misconduct, a %rievous

'ron%, a forbidden act, a dereliction in duty, 'illful in character, and implies a 'ron%ful

intent and not mere error in 3ud%ment.+

Such conduct on the part of respondent de%radesnot only himself but also the name and honor of the le%al profession. 8e violated this

Court(s mandate that la'yers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their

dealin% 'ith their clients and the public at lar%e, 'ith honesty and inte%rity in a manner

beyond reproach.4

Canon )6 of the same Code statesB

A l&0er oes %!$el!#0 #o #-e )&(se o% -!s )l!e"# &"$ -e s-&ll *e m!"$%(l o% #-e #r(s# &"$

)o"%!$e")e reose$ !" -!m.9

The records sho' that complainant reposed such hi%h de%ree of trust and confidence

in herein respondent, that 'hen she en%a%ed his services, she entrusted to him her land

titles and allo'ed him to sell her lots, believin% that the proceeds thereof 'ould be used to

pay her creditors. Respondent, ho'ever, abused her trust and confidence 'hen he did

not sell her properties to others but to himself and spent his o'n money to pay her

obli%ations. &s correctly observed by Investi%atin% I Commissioner Fydia Navarro

respondent is duty;bound to render a detailed report to the complainant on ho' much he

sold the latter(s lots and the amounts paid to her creditors. Obviously, had he sold the lotsto other buyers, complainant could have earned more. Records sho' that she did no

receive any amount from respondent. Clearly, respondent did not adhere faithfully and

honestly in his duty as complainant(s counsel.

Kndoubtedly, respondent(s conduct has made him unfit to remain in the le%a

profession. 8e has definitely fallen belo' the moral bar 'hen he en%a%ed in deceitful,

dishonest, unla'ful and %rossly immoral acts.

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

25/39

ublic interest re2uires that an attorney should e1ert his best efforts and ability to

protect the interests of his clients. & la'yer 'ho performs that duty 'ith dili%ence and

candor not only protects his client(s causeL he also serves the ends of 3ustice and does

honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the le%al profession.

It is a time;honored rule that %ood moral character is not only a condition precedent to

admission to the practice of la'. Its continued possession is also essential for remainin%in the le%al profession.*

Section 56, Rule )+7 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a la'yer may be

disbarred or suspended by this Court for any of the follo'in% actsB ")$ deceitL "5$

malpracticeL "+$ro"" *+"#o()u#$ +( o--+#eL "4$ %rossly immoral conductL "9$ convictionof a crime involvin% moral turpitudeL "$ violation of the la'yer(s oathL "6$ 'illfu

disobedience of any la'ful order of a superior courtL and "7$ 'illfully appearin% as an

attorney for a party 'ithout authority to do so. )/

In Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos,))'e ordered the disbarment of la'yer 'hen he deceived

his 79;year old aunt into entrustin% him 'ith all her money and later refused to return the

same despite demand. In Navarro vs. Meneses III,)5'e disbarred a member of the ar

for his refusal or failure to account for the 9/,///.// he received from a client to settle a

case. InDocena vs. imson,)+'e e1pelled from the brotherhood of la'yers, an attorney

'ho e1torted money from his client throu%h deceit and misrepresentation. In usi"os vs.

Rica#ort,)4an attorney 'as stripped of his license to practice la' for misappropriatin% his

client(s money.

Considerin% the depravity of respondent(s offense, 'e find the penalty recommended

by the I too li%ht. It bears reiteratin% that a la'yer 'ho ta-es advanta%e of his client(s

financial pli%ht to ac2uire the latter(s properties for his o'n benefit is destructive of the

confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and inte%rity of the le%al profession. Thus

for violation of Canon ) and Canon )6 of the Code of rofessional Responsibility, 'hich

constitutes %ross misconduct, and consistent 'ith the need to maintain the hi%h standards

of the ar and thus preserve the faith of the public in the le%al profession, respondent

deserves the ultimate penalty, that of e1pulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of

la'yers.

EREFORE, respondent 0OSE S. ?O is found %uilty of %ross misconduct and isDIS&RRED from the practice of la'. 8is name is ordered STRICMEN from the Roll of

&ttorneys E>>ECTIAE I!!EDI&TEF.

Fet copies of this Decision be furnished the ar Confidant, the Inte%rated ar of the

hilippines and all courts throu%hout the country.

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

26/39

SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. =8=>. De#e*ber 22, 1>>79

LOURDES R. %US?OS, #omplainant( s. ATTY. FRANCSCORCAFORT, respondent.

R E S O L U T O N

$&R C'RIAM

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

27/39

In a s'orn complaint for disbarment dated +) October )**4 but received by us on 5)

November )**4, complainant Fourdes R. usios char%ed respondent &tty. >rancisco

Ricafort, a practicin% la'yer in Oas, &lbay, 'ith havin% committed the crime of estafa

under &rticle +)9 ")$ "b$ of the Revised enal Code by misappropriatin% the sum

of +5,///.//. Of this amount,+/,///.// 'as entrusted to respondent for deposit in the

ban- account of complainant(s husband, 'hile 5,///.// represented the amount

respondent demanded from complainant supposedly for a bond in Civil Case No. 97)4,'hen no such bond 'as re2uired.

In the resolution of )7 0anuary )**9, 'e re2uired respondent to comment on the

complaint. Despite his receipt of a copy of the resolution, respondent did not comply,

compellin% us in the resolution of )6 0uly )**9 to re2uire him to sho' cause 'hy he

should not be disciplinarily dealt 'ith or held in contempt for such failure.

&%ain respondent failed to comply. 8ence in the resolution of 59 September )**, 'e

ordered him once more to file his comment 'ithin ten ")/$ days from notice, and 'ithin thesame period, to pay a fine of ),///.// or suffer imprisonment of ten ")/$ days should he

fail to so pay. In a Compliance and !otion dated 54 October )*, respondent transmitted

the fine of),///.// by 'ay of postal money order, but as-ed for five "9$ days from date to

file his comment. &s respondent still failed to so file, 'e then declared, in the resolution of

5 December )**, that respondent 'as deemed to have 'aived his ri%ht to file his

comment, and referred the complaint to the Office of the ar Confidant for reception of

complainant(s evidence and submission of a report and recommendation thereon.

On ) October )**6, the ar Confidant, &tty. Erlinda C. Aer=osa, submitted her Reportand Recommendation, material portions of 'hich read as follo'sB

Respon+ent Att4. raniso Ria2ort stan+s 3ar*e+ ;it3 3a&in* misappropriate+ t3e s'm

o2 P

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

28/39

Reantaso, &s. (eirs o2 Pe+ro Ro+ri*o Sr., et al.H no; pen+in* be2ore t3e Re*ional !rial Co'rt,

Bran3 7, $i*ao, Alba4

!o +eman+, ollet an+ reeipt 2or an4 an+ all s'ms o2 mone4 t3at ma4 no; be +eposite+

in sai+ o'rt b4 t3e +e2en+ant Oas Stan+ar+ (i*3 S3ool or 3erea2ter be +eposite+ b4 sai+

+e2en+ant, +'e an+ o;in* to me or sai+ (eirs o2 Pe+ro Ro+ri*o Sr., representin* t3e rentals o2 sai+

+e2en+ants 2or t3e lease o2 t3e propert4 in&ol&e+ in sai+ ase an+

< !o si*n, a't3entiate, iss'e an+ +eli&er an4 an+ all +ee+s, instr'ments, papers an+ ot3er

reor+s neessar4 an+ pertinent to t3e abo&e state+ transations.H

On A'*'st 7/, 7--D, t3e Re*ional !rial Co'rt o2 $i*ao, Alba4, Br. 7 iss'e+ an or+er, +iretin* t3e

Cler o2 Co'rt to release an4 an+ all +eposits o2 rentals ma+e in onnetion ;it3 t3is ase 5Ci&il

Case No. 78D6 to t3e +e2en+ants (eirs o2 Pe+ro Ro+ri*o t3ro'*3 $o'r+es Ro+ri*o B'sinos ;3o

;ere reei&in* t3e rentals 2rom Oas Stan+ar+ (i*3 S3ool prior to t3e instit'tion o2 t3is ase.H

In a letter +ate+ A'*'st 7/, 7--D, t3e Cler o2 Co'rt o2 R!C, $i*ao in2orme+ 3erein omplainant

t3at respon+ent 3a+ alrea+4 reei&e+ t3e rental +eposit o2 P8,///.// on e&e +ate 5see Anne1 CH

to t3e omplaint6. Respon+ent also reei&e+ 2rom Oas Stan+ar+ (i*3 S3ool on A'*'st 70, 7--D

t3e s'm o2 P8,///.// as pa4ment 2or rental o2 s3ool site 2or t3e mont3 o2 )'l4 7--D 5See Anne1

"H to t3e omplaint6. !3e sai+ s'm ;as entr'ste+ to respon+ent ;it3 an obli*ation on 3is part to

+eposit t3e same in t3e ao'nt o2 omplainants 3'sban+ at PNB, $i*ao Bran3. Instea+, 3o;e&er,

o2 +epositin* t3e mone4, respon+ent on&erte+ t3e mone4 to 3is o;n personal 'se, an+ +espite

se&eral +eman+s, 3e 2aile+ to ret'rn t3e same to omplainant. S3e ;as t3's onstraine+ to 2ile a

riminal ase 2or esta2a an+ an a+ministrati&e ase 2or +isbarment a*ainst 3im. !3's, on No&ember7, 7--D, omplainant 2ile+ t3e instant a+ministrati&e ase a*ainst respon+ent.

Complainant 2'rt3er a'ses respon+ent 2or +eman+in* an+ reei&in* P,///.// 2rom 3er ;3i3 3e

sai+ ;ill be 'se+ 2or t3e bon+ in Ci&il Case No. 78D, b't sai+ amo'nt ;as ne&er 'se+ as inten+e+

sine no bon+ ;as reF'ire+ in t3e sai+ ase. !3's, respon+ent merel4 poete+ t3e sai+ amo'nt.

111 111

111

Complainant, 'pon F'estionin* b4 t3e 'n+ersi*ne+, testi2ie+ t3at: S3e a't3orie+ respon+ent to

;it3+ra; t3e mone4 amo'ntin* to P

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

29/39

;it3+re; onl4 t3e s'm o2 Pe 3a&e no ot3er

alternati&e, t3ere2ore, b't to aept t3e sai+ +o'ments at t3eir ?si@ 2ae &al'e.

!3ere is no +o'bt t3at respon+ent is *'ilt4 o2 3a&in* 'se+ t3e mone4 o2 3is lients ;it3o't t3eironsent. As t3e e&i+entiar4 &al'e o2 t3e +o'ments s3o'l+ be *i&en more ;ei*3t t3an t3e oral

testimon4 o2 omplainant, ;e plae t3e amo'nt ille*all4 'se+ b4 respon+ent at P

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

30/39

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

31/39

R'le 7=./ A la;4er s3all eep t3e 2'n+s o2 ea3 lient separate an+ apart 2rom 3is o;n an+ t3ose

o2 ot3ers ept b4 3im.

R'le 7=./

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

32/39

EREFORE,for dishonesty, %rave misconduct, %rossly unethical behavior inpalpable disre%ard of Section 59 of Rule )+7 of the Rules of Court, Rule )./) of Canon )

and Rules )./), )./5 and )./+ of Canon ) of the Code of rofessional Responsibility

a%%ravated by a violation of Canon )) thereof, and consistent 'ith the ur%ent need to

maintain the esteemed traditions and hi%h standards of the le%al profession and to

preserve undiminished public faith in the members of the hilippine ar, the Court

Resolves to DIS&R respondent &TT. >R&NCISCO RIC&>ORT from the practice la'8is name is hereby stric-en from the Roll of &ttorneys.

This resolution shall ta-e effect immediately and copies thereof furnished the Office of

the ar Confidant, to be appended to respondent(s personal recordL the National Office

and the &lbay Chapter of the Inte%rated bar of the hilippinesL the hilippines 0ud%es

&ssociationL and all courts of the land for their information and %uidance.

SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 71@1 February 6, 200>

MARA AN3ALAN, NENA AN3ALAN, DONCO AN3ALAN, MA3DALENA AN3ALAN, FRANCSCA

AN3ALAN, NS AN3ALAN, ROSALNO AN3ALAN, AND OSEFNA AN3ALAN, ALL OF OM ARE ERSOF AN3ALAN SAMAL *arr+e) $o SANAAN SAMAL, Complainants,vs.

ATTY. LEONDO C. DELANTE,Respondent.

D E C S O N

$&R C'RIAM:

This is a complaint filed by !aria, Nena, Dionicio, !a%dalena, >rancisca, Inis, Rosalino, and 0osefina &n%alan

"complainants$ a%ainst &tty. Feonido C. Delante "respondent$ for %ross violation of the Code of rofessional

Responsibility.

Complainants are the heirs of &n%alan Samal "&n%alan$ and Sanaan Samal "Sanaan$. Complainants alle%e that

they are illiterate and belon% to the Samal Tribe. &n%alan, Sanaan, and complainants o'ned a *.)/5;hectare parcel

of land in arrio San 0ose, Maputian, Island ?arden City of Samal, Davao del Norte. The property 'as covered by

Ori%inal Certificate of Title "OCT$ No. ;))4**.)

On )9 &pril )*6), &n%alan and complainants borro'ed )9,/// from Navarro R. Eusta2uio and &rabella .

Eusta2uio "Spouses Eusta2uio$. To secure the loan, &n%alan and complainants mort%a%ed 7.)/5 hectares of the

*.)/5;hectare property and surrendered OCT No. ;))4** to the Spouses Eusta2uio. The Spouses Eusta2uio

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

33/39

prepared a document5and as-ed &n%alan and complainants to si%n it. &n%alan and complainants affi1ed their

thumb mar-s on the document.

R&NCISC& R&>&EF C&KF the sum of ONE T8OKS&ND TI>TEEN T8OKS&ND ESOS ")9,///.//$ 1 1 1L

4. 1 1 1 Knder the provisions of the ublic Fand Fa', particularly Section ))* thereof and even on the face of the

title of said property no' under the name of the defendants 1 1 1 the herein plaintiffs have the ri%ht to repurchase

said property 'ithin a period of five "9$ years from the date of the conveyanceL

1 1 1 1

6. &s a matter of ri%ht under the la', the herein plaintiffs are entitled to the produce of the property at least

be%innin% &pril 7, )*6L

1 1 1 1

*. y reason of un'arranted refusal on the part of the defendants to reconvey the property to plaintiffs, the latter

have been constrained to en%a%e, and in fact have en%a%ed, the services of counsel 1 1 1

Complainants and the Spouses Eusta2uio entered into an amicable settlement. In the amicable settlement6dated +September )*66, the parties stated thatB

). 1 1 1 The plaintiffs have offered to the defendants the sum of +/,///.// as repurchase price 'hich the

defendants acceptL

5. 1 1 1 Kpon the si%nin% hereof, the plaintiffs shall pay the defendants the sum of )9,///.// and for this

purpose hereby authori=e the defendants to collect the same from the Cler- of Court 'hich amount had

been deposited 'ith this 8onorable CourtL Fi-e'ise, upon si%nin% hereof the Deed of Reconveyance shall

be immediately e1ecuted and delivered by the defendants to plaintiffsL

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

34/39

+. 1 1 1

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

35/39

1 1 1 1

Contrary to the malicious and untruthful claim of the plaintiffs, the le%al services of defendant &tty. FEONIDO

DEF&NTE 'as never solicited by them. laintiffs only as-ed defendant from 'here they could borro' money, and

after -no'in% that they 3ust simply 'ould sic li-e to borro' money 'ithout any concrete investments in mind to

repay sic bac- sic any loan, defendant &tty. FEONIDO DEF&NTE drove them out of his office and told them to

loo- for another person to help themL

Defendant &tty. FEONIDO DEF&NTE later learned from !&C&RIO C&KF, 'ho is a friend and a to'n mate, and'ho is the husband of >R&NCISC& &N?&F&N C&KF, that the plaintiffs had ne%otiated a sale 'ith a certain

N&A&RRO EKST&HKIO 1 1 1L

In September )*66, a former >ilipino client of herein defendant DEF&NTE, 'ho, and his family sic are no'

permanent residents of Ne' or-, 'as loo-in% for a real property to build his retirement home, sic and he

approached herein defendant, in 'hich he 'as referred to defendant EKST&HKIO sicL Kpon visitin% the property

of defendant EKST&HKIO, he 'as so impressed of the location of the property and decided to buy the same, hence

left the money to herein defendant DEF&NTE and to buy sic said property under defendant(s name, 'ith the

understandin% to turn over said property to him, as soon as he and his family shall have returned to the countryL

1 1 1 Since herein defendant is not interested over the said property as his o'n, he 'aited for his client from Ne'or- to come home and to %et his property but after )) years, his client decided not to come bac- anymore to the

hilippines, and directed herein defendant to re%ister the Deed o# *aleover the property to sic his name and

directed herein defendant to refund his client. )4

Complainants filed a complaint)9dated 57 December 5//9 'ith the Court char%in% respondent 'ith %ross violation

of the Code of rofessional Responsibility. In a Resolution)dated + 0uly 5//, the Court re2uired respondent to

comment on the complaint and, in a Resolution)6dated 4 December 5//, the Court referred the case to the

Inte%rated ar of the hilippines "I$ for investi%ation, report and recommendation.

In a Notice dated )4 !arch 5//6, Commissioner Salvador . 8ababa% "Commissioner 8ababa%$ directed

complainants and respondent to appear before the I for a mandatory conference. The parties failed to appear atthe mandatory conference. In an Order dated ) !ay 5//6, Commissioner 8ababa% directed the parties to submit

their position papers.

In a motion dated 4 &pril 5//6 and filed 'ith the RTC, respondent and complainants prayed that Civil Case No. 96;

5//4 be dismissed. Complainants filed 'ith the Court a motion to 'ithdra' the complaint for disbarment dated 4

&pril 5//6 and an affidavit of desistance dated &pril 5//6.

In his position paper dated 5 0uly 5//6, respondent stated that ")$ &n%alan and Capul 'ent to his office in )*6) to

see- advice about borro'in% moneyL "5$ his client from Ne' or- bou%ht the property from the Spouses Eusta2uioL

and "+$ complainants e1ecuted a motion to 'ithdra' the complaint for disbarment and an affidavit of desistance.

In a Report dated )9 October 5//6, Commissioner 8ababa% found that respondent violated the Code of

rofessional ResponsibilityB

The issue to resolve is 'hether or not respondent committed %rave violation of the Code of rofessional

Responsibility 'hen he bou%ht the property of his clients 'ithout their -no'led%e, consent and a%ainst their 'ill

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

36/39

1 1 1 1

+" a+( a$$e*'$ $o "aae !+" *a+#+ou" a#$" a" $oo -+*"y $o a+( be+e- a() a##e'$a(#e. $ +"u(be+eabe $!a$ a buyer ou) e($ru"$ !+" *o(ey +($e()e) -or 'ay*e($ o- a 'ro'er$y bu$ aoe) $!a$ "a+)'ro'er$y be re+"$ere) u()er $!e (a*e o- a(o$!er, "'e#+-+#ay !+" ayer, "+*'y ru(" #ou($er $o or)+(ary!u*a( (a$ure. "Emphasis supplied$

Commissioner 8ababa% recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of la' for si1 months.

In a Resolution dated 55 November 5//6, the I oard of ?overnors "oard$ adopted and approved the Report

'ith modification. The oard increased respondent(s suspension from si1 months to one year.

ursuant to Section )5"b$, Rule )+*; of the Rules of Court,)7the oard for'arded the case to the Court for final

action.

The Court sustains the findin%s of the I.

Complainants and respondent presented t'o different sets of facts. &ccordin% to complainants, they en%a%ed the

services of respondent for the purpose of recoverin% their property from the Spouses Eusta2uio. In violation of the

trust and confidence they reposed in him, respondent transferred the title over the property to his name. &ccordin%to respondent, complainants did not en%a%e his services. 8is client from Ne' or- 'as the one 'ho bou%ht the

property from the Spouses Eusta2uio.

&fter a careful revie' of the records, the Court %ives credence to complainants( version of the facts.

Respondent(s credibility is hi%hly 2uestionable. In his ans'er dated 5* December 5//4 and filed 'ith the C>I and in

his position paper dated 5 0uly 5//6 and filed 'ith the I, respondent alle%ed that &n%alan and Capul 'ent to his

office in )*6) to see- advice about borro'in% money. &ccordin% to respondent, complainants did not en%a%e his

services. In his ans'er, respondent stated thatB

$ +" 're'o"$erou" -or#o*'a+(a($" $o #a+* $!a$ $!ey !a)sic e(ae) $!e 'ro-e""+o(a "er+#e" o- !ere+()e-e()a($$o -+e a( a((u*e($ #a"e since complainants never came bac- apparently ashamed 'hen they 'eredriven out 1 1 1L

1 1 1 1

Co($rary $o $!e *a+#+ou" a() u($ru$!-u #a+* o-#o*'a+(a($", $!e ea "er+#e" o- )e-e()a($ A$$y.LEONDO DELANTE a" (eer "o+#+$e) by $!e*. Pa+($+--" o(y a"Be) )e-e()a($ -ro* !ere $!ey #ou)borro *o(ey, and after -no'in% that they 3ust simply 'ould li-e to borro' money 'ithout any concreteinvestments in mind to repay bac- sic any loan, defendant &tty. FEONIDO DEF&NTE drove them out of his office

and told them to loo- for another person to help themL

De-e()a($ A$$y. LEONDO DELANTE a$er ear(e)from !&C&RIO C&KF 1 1 1 $!a$ $!e 'a+($+--" !a)(eo$+a$e) a "ae +$! a #er$a+( NA4ARRO EUSTAUO.)*"Emphasis supplied$

The Court is not impressed. &n%alan and complainants 'ent to respondent(s office not to see- advice about

borro'in% money but to en%a%e his services for the purpose of recoverin% their property. This is obvious. >irst, after

&n%alan and complainants 'ent to respondent(s office, respondent filed a complaint 'ith the C>I prayin% that the

Spouses Eusta2uio reconvey the property to &n%alan and complainants. Second, in the complaint, respondent

stated that, #by reason of un'arranted refusal on the part of the defendants to reconvey the property to

plaintiffs, $!e a$$er !ae bee( #o("$ra+(e) $o e(ae, a() +( -a#$ !ae e(ae), $!e "er+#e" o- #ou("e.#

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

37/39

Third, respondent issued a receipt to complainants statin% that he #RECE4ED -ro* Mr. MACARO CAPUL a()FRANCSCA RAFAEL CAPUL $!e "u* o- ONE TOUSAND TO UNDRED PESOS ;P1,200.00< re're"e($+(-u 'ay*e($ o- 'ro-e""+o(a "er+#e"+( rear) $o $!e re#oery o- Or++(a Cer$+-+#a$e o- T+$e No. P/11=>> +($!e (a*e o- A(aa( ;Sa*aourth, in respondent(s letter dated )/ 0anuary )*6* and addressed to the barriocaptain of Kmbay, Samal, Davao del Norte, he stated that he 'as the la'yer of complainantsB

This 'ill inform you that the 8eirs of &n%alan Samal have already redeemed their property throu%h me from !r.

Navarro Eusta2uio since September, )*67. ( *y #a'a#+$y a" #ou("e o- $!e e+r" o- A(aa( Sa*a and o'ner

of the money in redeemin% the property, I have authori=ed !r. !acario Capol to ta-e over the possession of theproperty to%ether 'ith the harvestin% of the matured coconuts.5/

These clearly sho' that complainants en%a%ed the services of respondent.

In his ans'er, respondent alle%ed that complainants did not pay him his professional fees "'hich, accordin% to him,

they did not en%a%e$. 8e stated that, #complainants had never paid the herein defendant a sin%le centavo for

purposes of filin% an annulment case a%ainst 1 1 1 N&A&RRO EKST&HKIO.#

The Court is not impressed. Complainants fully paid respondent his professional fees. This is obvious. In a receipt

dated )7 November )*6/, respondent stated that he #RECE4ED -ro* Mr. MACARO CAPUL a() FRANCSCA

RAFAEL CAPUL $!e "u* o- ONE TOUSAND TO UNDRED PESOS ;P1,200.00< re're"e($+( -u 'ay*e($o- 'ro-e""+o(a "er+#e"in re%ard to the recovery of Ori%inal Certificate of Title No. ;))4** in the name of

&n%alan "Samal$.# This clearly sho's that complainants paid respondent his professional fees.

In his ans'er and position paper, respondent alle%ed that his client from Ne' or- bou%ht the property from the

Spouses Eusta2uioB

In September )*66, a former >ilipino client of herein respondent, 'ho, and his family sic are no' permanent

residents of Ne' or-, 'as loo-in% for a real property to build his retirement home, and he approached herein

respondent, in 'hich sic he 'as referred to Navarro Eusta2uioL and upon visitin% the property of Navarro

Eusta2uio, he 'as impressed of sic the location of the property and decided to buy the same, hence left the money

to herein respondent and to buy sic said property under respondent(s name, 'ith the understandin% to turn oversaid property to him, as soon as he and his family shall have returned to the countryL

1 1 1 Since herein respondent 'as not interested over the said property as his o'n, he 'aited for his client from

Ne' or- to come home and to %et his property but after )) years, his client decided not to come bac- anymore to

the hilippines, and directed herein respondent to re%ister the Deed of Sale over the property under his name and

directed herein respondent to refund his client. 5)

The Court is not impressed. Complainants repurchased the property from the Spouses Eusta2uio. This is obvious.

>irst, complainants and the Spouses Eusta2uio entered into an amicable settlement statin% that complainants 'ould

repurchase the property from the Spouses Eusta2uioB

). 1 1 1 T!e 'a+($+--" !ae o--ere) $o $!e )e-e()a($" $!e "u* o- P80,000.00 a" re'ur#!a"e 'r+#e!+#! $!e )e-e()a($" a##e'$L

5. 1 1 1 Kpon the si%nin% hereof, the plaintiffs shall pay the defendants the sum of )9,///.// and for this

purpose hereby authori=e the defendants to collect the same from the Cler- of Court 'hich amount had

been deposited 'ith this 8onorable CourtL Fi-e'ise, upon si%nin% hereof the Deed of Reconveyance shall

be immediately e1ecuted and delivered by the defendants to plaintiffsL

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

38/39

8/9/2019 Canon 16 Full

39/39

the public in the le%al profession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalty, that of e1pulsion from the esteemed

brotherhood of la'yers.56

& person 'ho ta-es the 7.)/5;hectare property of his illiterate clients and 'ho is incapable of tellin% the truth is unfit

to be a la'yer.

EREFORE, the Court finds &tty. Feonido C. Delante 3ULTYof violatin% Canons ) and )6 of the Code ofrofessional Responsibility. &ccordin%ly, the Court DS%ARShim from the practice of la' and ORDERSthat his

name be stric-en from the Roll of &ttorneys.

Fet copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the ar Confidant, the Inte%rated ar of the hilippines, and all

courts all over the country. Fet a copy of this Decision li-e'ise be attached to the personal records of respondent.

SO ORDERED.