EN BANC
SOLEDAD NUÑEZ, Represented by ANANIAS B. CO, Attorney-in-Fact for Complainant, petitioner, vs. ATTY. ROMULO RICAFORT, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PER
CURIAM:
This is an administrative
complaint filed on 21 April 1999 by Soledad Nuñez, a septuagenarian represented
by her attorney-in-fact Ananias B. Co, Jr., seeking the disbarment of
respondent Atty. Romulo Ricafort on the ground of grave misconduct.
From the documents
submitted by the complainant, it appears that sometime in October 1982 she
authorized respondent to sell her two parcels of land located in Legazpi City
for P40,000. She agreed to give respondent 10 percent of the price as
commission. Respondent succeeded in selling the lots, but despite complainant’s
repeated demands, he did not turn over to her the proceeds of the sale. This
forced complainant to file against respondent and his wife an action for a sum
of money before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The case was docketed
as Civil Case No. Q-93-15052.
For his failure to file
an answer, respondent was declared in default and complainant was required to
present ex-parte her evidence. On 29 September 1993, the court rendered
its decision (Annex “C” of the Complaint) ordering respondent herein to pay
complainant the sum of P16,000 as principal obligation, with interest
thereon at the legal rate from the date of the commencement of the action, i.e.,
8 March 1993, until it is fully paid, and to pay the costs of suit.
Respondent and his wife
appealed from the decision to the Court of Appeals. However, the appeal was
dismissed for failure to pay the required docket fee within the reglementary
period despite notice.
On 23 October 1995
complainant filed in Civil Case No. Q-93-15052 a motion for the issuance of an
alias writ of execution, which the court granted on 30 October 1995. The next
day, the alias writ of execution was issued (Annex “B” of Complaint). It
appears that only a partial satisfaction of the P16,000 judgment was
made, leaving P13,800 thereof unsatisfied. In payment for the latter,
respondent issued four postdated checks drawn against his account in China
Banking Corporation, Legazpi City.
Upon presentment,
however, the checks were dishonored because the account against which they were
drawn was closed (Annexes “D” and “E” of Complaint). Demands for respondent to
make good the checks fell on deaf ears, thus forcing complainant to file four
criminal complaints for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 before the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Quezon City (Annexes “F,” “G,” “H” and “I” of the Complaint).
In the “Joint Affidavit”
of respondent and his wife filed with the Office of the Prosecutor, Quezon
City, respondent admitted having drawn and issued said four postdated checks in
favor of complainant. Allegedly believing in good faith that said checks had
already been encashed by complainant, he subsequently closed his checking
account in China Banking Corporation, Legazpi City, from which said four checks
were drawn. He was not notified that the checks were dishonored. Had he been
notified, he would have made the necessary arrangements with the bank.
We required respondent to
comment on the complaint. But he never did despite our favorable action on his
three motions for extension of time to file the comment. His failure to do so
compelled complainant to file on 10 March 2000 a motion to cite respondent in
contempt on the ground that his strategy to file piecemeal motions for
extension of time to submit the comment “smacks of a delaying tactic scheme
that is unworthy of a member of the bar and a law dean.”
In our resolution of 14
June 2000, we noted the motion for contempt; considered respondent to have
waived the filing of a comment; and referred this case to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippine (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation or decision
within ninety days from notice of the resolution.
In her Report and
Recommendation dated 12 September 2000, Investigating Commissioner Atty.
Milagros V. San Juan concluded that respondent had no intention to “honor” the
money judgment against him in Civil Case No. Q-93-15052 as can be gleaned from
his (1) issuance of postdated checks; (2) closing of the account against which
said checks were drawn; and (3) continued failure to make good the amounts of
the checks. She then recommends that respondent be declared “guilty of
misconduct in his dealings with complainant” and be suspended from the practice
of law for at least one year and pay the amount of the checks issued to the
complainant.
In its Resolution No.
XV-2001-244 of 27 October 2001, the Board of Governors of the IBP approved and
adopted Atty. San Juan’s Report and Recommendation.
We concur with the
findings of the Investigating Commissioner, as adopted and approved by the
Board of Governors of the IBP, that respondent Atty. Romulo Ricafort is guilty
of grave misconduct in his dealings with complainant. Indeed, the record shows
respondent’s grave misconduct and notorious dishonesty.
There is no need to
stretch one’s imagination to arrive at an inevitable conclusion that respondent
gravely abused the confidence that complainant reposed in him and committed
dishonesty when he did not turn over the proceeds of the sale of her property.
Worse, with palpable bad faith, he compelled the complainant to go to court for
the recovery of the proceeds of the sale and, in the process, to spend money,
time and energy therefor. Then, despite his deliberate failure to answer the
complaint resulting in his having been declared in default, he appealed from
the judgment to the Court of Appeals. Again, bad faith attended such a step
because he did not pay the docket fee despite notice. Needless to state,
respondent wanted to prolong the travails and agony of the complainant and to
enjoy the fruits of what rightfully belongs to the latter. Unsatisfied with
what he had already unjustly and unlawfully done to complainant, respondent
issued checks to satisfy the alias writ of execution. But, remaining
unrepentant of what he had done and in continued pursuit of a clearly malicious
plan not to pay complainant of what had been validly and lawfully adjudged by
the court against him, respondent closed the account against which the checks
were drawn. There was deceit in this. Respondent never had the intention of
paying his obligation as proved by the fact that despite the criminal cases for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22, he did not pay the obligation.
All the foregoing
constituted grave and gross misconduct in blatant violation of Rule 1:01 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
Respondent’s claim of
good faith in closing his account because he thought complainant has already
encashed all checks is preposterous. The account was closed on or before 26
February 1996. He knew that there were still other checks due on 29 February
1996 and 15 March 1996 which could not be encashed before their maturity dates.
By violating Rule 1:01 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent diminished
public confidence in the law and the lawyers (Busiños v. Ricafort, 283 SCRA 407
[1997]; Ducat v. Villalon, 337 SCRA 622 [2000]). Instead of promoting such
confidence and respect, he miserably failed to live up to the standards of the
legal profession (Gonato v. Adaza, 328 SCRA 694 [2000]; Ducat v. Villalon, supra).
Respondent’s act of
issuing bad checks in satisfaction of the alias writ of execution for money
judgment rendered by the trial court was a clear attempt to defeat the ends of
justice. His failure to make good the checks despite demands and the criminal
cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 showed his continued defiance of judicial
processes, which he, as an officer of the court, was under continuing duty to
uphold.
To further demonstrate
his very low regard for the courts and judicial processes, respondent even had
the temerity of making a mockery of our generosity to him. We granted his three
motions for extension of time to file his comment on the complaint in this
case. Yet, not only did he fail to file the comment, he as well did not even
bother to explain such failure notwithstanding our resolution declaring him as
having waived the filing of the comment. To the Highest Court of the land,
respondent openly showed a high degree of irresponsibility amounting to willful
disobedience to its lawful orders (Thermochem Incorporated v. Naval, 344 SCRA
76, 82 [2000]; Sipin-Nabor v. Atty. Baterina, Adm. Case No. 4073, 28 June
2001).
Respondent then knowingly
and willfully violated Rules 12.04 and 12:03 of Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which respectively provide that lawyers should
avoid any action that would unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse court processes; and that lawyers, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, should not let the
period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for their
failure to do so.
The penalty of suspension
“for at least one (1) year” imposed by the Board of Governors of the IBP is
both vague and inadequate. A suspension may either be indefinite or for a
specific duration. Besides, under the circumstances of this case a suspension
for a year is plainly very light and inadequate. For his deliberate violation or
defiance of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rules 12:03 and 12:04 of Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, coupled with his palpable bad faith and
dishonesty in his dealings with the complainant, respondent deserves a graver
penalty. That graver penalty is indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, respondent Atty.
Romulo Ricafort is hereby INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED from the practice of law, and
is directed to pay complainant Soledad Nuñez the amount of P13,800 within
ten (10) days from notice of this resolution.
This resolution shall
take effect immediately. Copies thereof shall be furnished the Office of the
Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent’s personal record; the Office of
the President; the Department of Justice; the Court of Appeals; the
Sandiganbayan; and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Court
Administrator shall also furnish all lower courts with copies of this
Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, and Corona, JJ., concur.