2-C SUPREME COURT

MANILA
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 12881, February 09, 2021 ]
NORMA NICOLAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOSE LAKI, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Antecedents
By Complaint-Affidavit1 filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on June
20, 2007, complainant Norma Nicolas sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Jose
Laki for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and 1.02; Canon 10, Rule 10.01; Canon 15,
Rule 15.06; Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and 16.03; and Canon 18, Rule 18.03, all of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)2 She essentially alleged:
In November 2005, she asked Atty. Adoracion Umipig to handle the nullity of marriage
case of her brother Joseph Darag, a Filipino based in Japan. But since Atty. Umipig
worked with the government, she referred the matter to her friends in private practice.
Respondent, an old friend and former officemate of hers, volunteered to handle the
case.3
Respondent informed her he would be filing the case in Balanga, Bataan where he
had successfully handled and completed a similar petition in only three (3) months. He
charged a fee of P130,000.00 and assured her the annulment proceedings would be
finished by the first week of April 2006.4
About a month later, respondent fetched Atty. Umipig in Manila and met with her
(complainant) in Mabalacat City, Pampanga. There, she gave respondent the initial
payment of P100,000.00 which was discounted to P95,000.00. Atty. Umipig was
present when the payment was made.5
In March 2006, respondent requested additional payment and reassured her that the
case was almost finished. Thus, she had Atty. Umipig deposit P20,000.00 to the bank
account of respondent's mother.6
In April 2006, respondent told her and Atty. Umipig that Judge Vianzon who was
presiding over the case was on leave. He nevertheless guaranteed that the case was
almost done. But after the holy week, she could no longer contact respondent. Atty.
Umipig, too, tried to contact him, but to no avail.7
Atty. Umipig was eventually able to locate respondent but the latter simply made
excuses. He claimed that Judge Vianzon was hesitant to issue a favorable decision
but he managed to convince the judge to do it anyway. According to him, the sheriff
was already serving copies of the decision to the National Statistics Office and the
Local Civil Registrar in Nueva Ecija where Joseph's marriage took place.8 Thereafter,
respondent became elusive once again.9
In November 2006, she went to Balanga, Bataan to check on the status of Joseph's
annulment case but discovered that no case was ever filed by respondent. She thus
sought Atty. Umipig's help to compel respondent to return the money she had paid.
Eventually, they were able to contact respondent who promised to return the money
he received. But he never made good his promise. He, too, ignored the demand letter
she sent him.10
Hence, she now seeks respondent's disbarment for the latter's misrepresentations,
deceitful conduct, and misappropriation of money entrusted him, in violation of the
CPR.
Respondent failed to refute the charges against him.
First. Respondent failed to file any answer despite seeking an extension to file one
until August 16, 2007. About a decade later, when he was given a fresh period of fifteen
(15) days or until May 9, 2017 within which to file an answer, he squandered the
opportunity anew.11
Second. On respondent's manifestation-request, the investigating commissioner
issued Order dated November 8, 2017, giving respondent ten (10) days to file his
position paper. He failed to comply yet again.12
Finally. Respondent failed to attend the clarificatory hearing on May 4, 2018 where
Atty. Umipig testified against him.13
IBP Report and Recommendation
By Report and Recommendation14 dated April 3, 2019, Commissioner Nelly Annegret
R. Puno-Yambot found respondent guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01; Canon 11;
Canon 15, Rule 15.06;15 Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03; and Canon 18, Rule
18.03, warranting his disbarment, thus:
WHEREFORE in view thereof, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Jose
N. Laki be DISBARRED from the practice of law. The Commission likewise
recommends that respondent be ordered to pay the complainant twenty (P20,000.00)
with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum.
Respectfully submitted.
Preliminarily, Commissioner Puno-Yambot noted that respondent already got
disbarred in Kenneth R. Mariano v. Atty. Jose N. Laki16 for reasons similar to those
complained of in the present case. Thus, Commissioner Puno-Yambot recommended
respondent's disbarment anew, if only to caution this Court against granting
respondent's plea for judicial clemency, if at all he would ask for it.17
By Resolution dated June 17, 2019, the IBP Board of Governors adopted
Commissioner Puno-Yambot's recommendation although it deleted the order to
reimburse P20,000.00 to complainant and imposed a P20,000.00 fine, viz.:
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner, with modification, to impose upon Respondent the penalty
of DISBARMENT and for failure to comply with the various orders and requirements
of the Commission, a FINE of P20,000.00 plus application of legal interest thereto until
fully paid.
On July 28, 2020, the IBP elevated the entire records for the Court's consideration
since the IBP Resolution was merely recommendatory in nature and does not attain
finality without the Court's final act.
Ruling
The Court adopts the factual findings of the IBP but modifies the recommended
penalty.
As keenly observed by Commissioner Puno-Yambot, the present case mirrors the
factual milieu of Mariano in all substantial aspects. A reproduction of the facts therein
is apropos:18
On January 7, 2009, Mariano alleged that he approached Atty. Laki to engage his legal
services for the filing of a petition for annulment of his marriage. Atty. Laki then
informed him to prepare the amount of P160,000.00, representing a package deal for
his professional fee, docket fee and expenses for the preparation and filing of the
petition, subject to an advance payment of P50,000.00. Mariano expressed surprise
over the huge amount that Atty. Laki was asking, thus, the latter assured him that he
could secure a favorable decision even without Mariano's personal appearance since
he will file the petition for annulment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac
which is presided by a "friendly judge" and is known to be receptive to annulment
cases.
Believing in Atty. Laki's assurances, Mariano initially paid Atty. Laki the amount of
P50,000.00, as evidenced by a receipt issued by Atty. Laki himself on January 7, 2009.
Upon Atty. Laki's relentless follow-ups to pay the remaining balance, Mariano made
the succeeding payments in the amounts of P40,000.00 and P60,000.00 on April 13,
2009 and August 2009, respectively, as evidenced by receipts issued by Atty. Laki.
For almost a year thereafter, Mariano followed up with Atty. Laki the status of the
petition. He then discovered that the petition has yet to be filed. Atty. Laki told him that
the Presiding Judge of the RTC-Tarlac where he allegedly filed the petition has been
dismissed by the Supreme Court, thus, he decided to withdraw the case since he did
not expect the new presiding judge to be "friendly."
Doubtful of Atty. Laki's allegations, Mariano attempted to get a copy of the petition but
the former told him that he still has to locate the copy in his office. Mariano tried several
times to get hold of a copy of the petition but nevertheless failed, as it became very
difficult to meet Atty. Laki. Mariano averred that he also tried calling Atty. Laki through
his cellphone, but his calls were likewise rejected. These then prompted Mariano to
instead demand the return of his money considering that it was apparent that Atty. Laki
failed to fulfill his duty as lawyer to file the petition for annulment.
xxxx
The misconduct of Atty. Laki is further aggravated by Atty. Laki's non-chalant attitude
on the proceedings before the IBP, as demonstrated by his repetitive disregard of the
IBP's directives to file his comment on the complaint and appear during hearings. Atty.
Laki, while astute in filing several motions for postponement of the mandatory
conference, he never filed his answer to the complaint, despite several reminders and
opportunities given by the IBP. He, likewise, offered no justification or any valid reason
as to why he failed to submit his Answer.
Clearly, Atty. Laki's act of ignoring the IBP's directives is tantamount to an obstinate
refusal to comply with the IBP's rules and procedures. This constitutes blatant
disrespect for the IBP which amounts to conduct unbecoming lawyer. As an officer of
the court, Atty. Laki is expected to know that said directives of the IBP, as the
investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers, is not a mere
request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. As an
officer of the court, it is a lawyer's duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court.
The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer's obedience to
court orders and processes.
In Mariano, respondent accepted money from his client as payment for handling the
latter's case for nullity of marriage. But respondent failed to file any petition for his
client. He, too, failed to return his client's money despite demand. Respondent's
attitude during the IBP proceedings and his repeated disregard of its directives also
did not escape the Court's attention. In view of the totality of respondent's infractions,
the Court imposed the ultimate penalty of disbarment against him.
Indeed, the facts laid down in Mariano do not stray from the present case. Respondent
did not change his pattern of behavior, only his victim. Hence, the Court shall deal with
respondent in the present case with as much severity as it did in Mariano.
In Mariano, the Court found respondent guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01; Canon
11, Rule 11.04; and Canon 16, Rules 16.01 to 16.03 of the CPR, which ordain:
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record
or have no materiality to the case.
CANON 16- A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession.
Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for
or from the client.
Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his
own and those of others kept by him.
Rule 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof
as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice
promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all
judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of
Court.
As held:19
In the instant case, it is clear that Atty. Laki violated his sworn duties under the CPR.
Not only did he fail to file the petition for annulment of marriage despite receipt of the
acceptance fee in the amount of P150,000.00, he also failed to account for the money
he received. He also failed to keep his client abreast with the developments and status
of the case as he actually never provided Mariano a copy of the petition despite
demand. Worse, after receiving his acceptance fee, Atty. Laki also made it difficult for
his client to contact him, as in fact Mariano felt that he was being avoided.
Having received payment for services which were not rendered, Atty. Laki was
unjustified in keeping Mariano's money. His obligation was to immediately return the
said amount. His refusal to do so despite repeated demands constitutes a violation of
his oath where he pledges not to delay any man for money and swears to conduct
himself with good fidelity to his clients. His failure to return the money, also gives rise
to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of,
and in violation of, the trust reposed in him by the client. It is a gross violation of general
morality as well as of professional ethics, as it impairs public confidence in the legal
profession.
It must be emphasized anew that the fiduciary nature of the relationship between the
counsel and his client imposes on the lawyer the duty to account for the money or
property collected or received for or from his client. When a lawyer collects or receives
money from his client for a particular purpose, he should promptly account to the client
how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he
must immediately return it to the client. Atty. Laki's failure to render an accounting, and
to return the money if the intended purpose thereof did not materialize, constitutes a
blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the CPR.
But what we find more deplorable was Atty. Laki's act of giving assurance to Mariano
that he can secure a favorable decision without the latter's personal appearance
because the petition will be filed in the RTC of Tarlac, which is allegedly presided by a
"friendly" judge who is receptive to annulment cases. Atty. Laki's deceitful assurances
give the implication that a favorable decision can be obtained by being in cahoots with
a "friendly" judge. It gives a negative impression that decisions of the courts can be
decided merely on the basis of close ties with the judge and not necessarily on the
merits. Without doubt, Atty. Laki's statements cast doubts on the integrity of the courts
in the eyes of the public. By making false representation to his client, Atty. Laki not
only betrayed his client's trust but he also undermined the trust and faith of the public
in the legal profession.
Surely, the clear repetition of offenses here warrants the same finding of guilt for
violation of the above-cited canons and rules.
The Court finds, however, that Commissioner Puno-Yambot correctly included Canon
15, Rule 15.06, and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 in respondent's repertoire of violations.
These provisions state:
CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his client.
Rule 15.06 A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public
official, tribunal or legislative body.
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Indeed, respondent's act of telling complainant that he could get a favorable decision
should he file the petition for nullity of marriage in Bataan and, thereafter, boasting he
was able to convince the presiding judge who had misgivings regarding the purported
case shows respondent's disrespect toward the independence of the Judiciary. His
actions gave the false impression that judges may be influenced or swayed, causing
public confidence in the Judiciary to erode.20 Such conduct should not be taken lightly
considering that the image of the Judiciary was diminished in the eyes of the
public.21 Respondent should therefore be held liable for violation of Canon 15, Rule
15.06.
As regards Canon 18, Rule 18.03, Zaldivar v. Cabanes22 elucidates:
x x x a lawyer's duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the
cases entrusted to the counsel's care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists
of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled
hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the
handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting
for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so.
Conversely, a lawyer's negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to disciplinary
action. While such negligence or carelessness is incapable of exact formulation, the
Court has consistently held that the lawyer's mere failure to perform the obligations
due his client is per se a violation.
In Enriquez v. Lavadia, Jr.,23 respondent got disbarred for his proven propensity for
filing motions for extension without filing the required pleading, in violation of Canon
18, Rule 18.03 of the CPR, among others. Too, in Mariveles v. Mallari,24 the Court
disbarred respondent for failing to file his client's appellant's brief despite being
granted a 245-day extension. And in Figueras v. Jimenez,25 respondent was found
administratively liable for failing to file the appellant's brief on behalf of his client.
Here, respondent violated the rule when he neglected to file Joseph's petition for nullity
of marriage, the very pleading which would have initiated the entire process. Despite
repeated prodding from complainant, respondent simply made excuses and foisted
lies upon lies onto complainant to lead her to believe there was actual progress in
Joseph's case when in fact there was none. Commissioner Puno-Yambot, therefore,
correctly found respondent liable for violating Rule 18.03 of the CPR.
All told, the Court finds more reason to disbar respondent here than it did in Mariano.
But then the Court cannot disbar respondent anew. For in this jurisdiction, we do not
impose double disbarment.26
In Punla v. Villa-Ona,27 the Court would have disbarred respondent for her gross and
continuing violation of the CPR, were it not for her disbarment in a prior disciplinary
case. Since respondent could no longer serve the same penalty, the Court imposed a
fine of P40,000.00 on respondent instead.
Here, the Court finds justification in the imposition of a P40,000.00 fine on respondent.
It is distinct and separate from the P20,000.00 fine imposed by the IBP for
respondent's failure to comply with its various directives. The former is imposed
in lieu of disbarment since respondent cannot serve two (2) penalties of disbarment
simultaneously; the latter, for his discourtesy toward the IBP and his defiance of its
directives to appear during the proceedings and respond to the complaint filed against
him.
Finally, respondent must return the money he received from complainant for his utter
failure to render the legal service required of him under their attorney-client
relation.28 Commissioner Puno-Yambot found that complainant was able to prove
payment to respondent of P20,000.00 which Atty. Umipig deposited to the bank
account of respondent's mother.29 In addition, the Court notes that complainant, too,
sufficiently established that she paid respondent P95,000.00 while they were in
Mabalacat City, Pampanga. For one, respondent failed to refute this allegation despite
having been given the opportunity to do so many times. For another, Atty. Umipig
executed an affidavit stating she witnessed that such payment in fact took
place.30 Thus, respondent is liable to reimburse complainant P115,000.00, plus
twelve percent (12%) interest per annum from demand on March 27, 2007 until June
30, 2013, and six percent (6%) interest per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully paid in
accordance with Nacar v. Gallery Frames.31
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS respondent Jose Laki GUILTY of violating Canon 1,
Rule 1.01; Canon 11, Rule 11.04; Canon 15, Rule 15.06; Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and
16.03; and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ℒαwρhi৷
He is ORDERED to PAY a fine of P40,000.00 in lieu of disbarment, and P20,000.00
for failure to comply with the various directives of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Respondent is also REQUIRED to RETURN to complainant Norma Nicolas
P115,000.00 plus twelve percent (12%) interest per annum from demand on March
27, 2007 until June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) interest per annum from July 1,
2013 until fully paid.
Furnish a copy of this Decision to the Office of the Bar Confidant, which shall append
the same to the personal record of respondent; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines;
and the Office of the Court Administrator, which shall circulate the same to all courts
in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.