Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.C. No.

9074 August 14, 2012

GRACE M. ANACTA*, Complainant, vs. ATTY. EDUARDO D. RESURRECCION, Respondent. DECISI DEL CASTILLO, J.: !"he pu#pose of disba#ment is to p#otect the cou#ts and the public f#om the misconduct of the office#s of the cou#t and to ensu#e the administ#ation of $ustice b% #e&ui#in' that those (ho e)e#cise this impo#tant function shall be competent, hono#able and t#ust(o#th% men in (hom cou#ts and clients ma% #epose confidence.!* In a Complaint+ fo# disba#ment filed on Au'ust ++, +,,- (ith the Inte'#ated Ba# of the Philippines Committee on Ba# Discipline .IBP/CBD0, complainant 1#ace M. Anacta .complainant0 p#a%s fo# the disba#ment of #espondent Att%. Edua#do D. Resu##eccion .#espondent0 fo# !'#oss misconduct, deceit and malp#actice.!2 Reco#ds sho( that on Novembe# *3, +,,4, complainant en'a'ed the se#vices of #espondent to file on he# behalf a petition fo# annulment of ma##ia'e befo#e the Re'ional "#ial Cou#t .R"C0 of 5ue6on Cit%, fo# (hich she paid #espondent P 4+,,,,.,,.4 In Decembe# +,,4, #espondent p#esented to the complainant a supposed cop% of a Petition fo# Annulment of Ma##ia'e3 (hich bo#e the stamped #eceipt dated Decembe# 7, +,,4 of the R"C, as (ell as its doc8et numbe#, Civil Case No. ,4/+3*4*. 9#om then on, complainant did not hea# f#om #espondent o# #eceive an% notice f#om the t#ial cou#t #elative to the said petition. "his p#ompted he# to ma8e in&ui#ies (ith the ffice of the Cle#8 of Cou#t of the R"C of 5ue6on Cit% . CC/R"C0. "o he# su#p#ise and disma%, she discove#ed that no petition fo# annulment doc8eted as Civil Case No. ,4/+3*4* (as eve# filed befo#e the said cou#t. : "hus, complainant te#minated the se#vices of #espondent !fo# loss of t#ust and confidence! - and #e&uested the CC/R"C to #efuse an% belated attempt on the pa#t of #espondent to file a petition fo# annulment of ma##ia'e on he# behalf.7 n ;ul% 2,, +,,-, complainant, th#ou'h he# ne( counsel, (#ote a lette# < to the #espondent demandin' fo# an e)planation as to ho( #espondent intended to indemnif% the complainant fo# dama'es she had suffe#ed due to #espondent=s deceitful acts. Respondent has not #eplied the#eto. >ence, complainant filed befo#e the IBP a ve#ified complaint p#a%in' that #espondent be disba##ed. In an #de#*, dated Au'ust ++, +,,-, the Di#ecto# fo# Ba# Discipline of the IBP, Att%. Alicia A. Risos/ ?idal, #e&ui#ed the #espondent to submit his ans(e# to the complaint (ithin *3 da%s f#om notice. >o(eve#, #espondent did not heed said di#ective. >ence, complainant filed Motions to Decla#e Respondent in Default and >ea# the Case E)/Pa#te. ** "he Investi'atin' Commissione#, Romualdo A. N

Din, ;#., held in abe%ance the #esolution of the above motions and instead set the complaint fo# Mandato#% Confe#ence on ctobe# :, +,,7.*+ n the said date, ho(eve#, onl% the complainant and he# counsel appea#ed. Acco#din'l%, in an #de# *2 dated ctobe# :, +,,7, the Investi'atin' Commissione# deemed #espondent to have (aived the filin' of an ans(e#@ noted complainant=s motion to decla#e #espondent in default@ and 'ave the complainant *, da%s f#om notice (ithin (hich to file he# ve#ified position pape#, afte# (hich the case shall be deemed submitted fo# #esolution. Complainant filed he# ve#ified Position Pape# *4 on ctobe# *3, +,,7.

In his Repo#t and Recommendation*3 dated Decembe# 7, +,,7, the Investi'atin' Commissione# found clea# and convincin' evidence that #espondent is 'uilt% of deceit and dishonest% (hen he mis#ep#esented havin' filed the petition fo# annulment of ma##ia'e afte# #eceipt of P4+,,,,.,, (hen in fact no such petition (as filed. >e thus #ecommended that #espondent be suspended f#om the p#actice of la( fo# a pe#iod of t(o %ea#s and to #eimbu#seA#etu#n to the complainant the amount of P4+,,,,.,,. In a Resolution*: dated Au'ust +7, +,*,, the IBP Boa#d of 1ove#no#s adopted and app#oved the findin's of the Investi'atin' Commissione# but modified the #ecommended penalt% of suspension f#om the p#actice of la( f#om t(o %ea#s to fou# %ea#s and o#de#ed #espondent to #etu#n to the complainant the amount of P 4+,,,,.,,, othe#(ise his suspension (ill continue until he #etu#ns the sum involved. Ou Ru!"#g Be adopt the findin's and #ecommendation of the IBP. In Narag v. Atty. Narag*- this Cou#t held that !CtDhe bu#den of p#oof #ests upon the complainant, and the Cou#t (ill e)e#cise its disciplina#% po(e# onl% if she establishes he# case b% clea#, convincin' and satisfacto#% evidence.! In this case, complainant submitted the follo(in' documents to p#ove he# alle'ationsE .*0 the Se#vice A'#eement dated Novembe# *3, +,,4 to p#ove the e)istence of atto#ne%/client #elationship bet(een the pa#ties@ .+0 the Petition fo# Annulment of Ma##ia'e*7 supposedl% filed b% #espondent on Decembe# 7, +,,4 (ith the R"C of 5ue6on Cit% and doc8eted as Civil Case No. ,4/+3*4*@ .20 the Ce#tification issued b% the Assistant Cle#8 of Cou#t of the R"C of 5ue6on Cit% sho(in' that !no Petition fo# Annulment of Ma##ia'e (ith Civil Case No. 5/,4/+3*4* (as filed on Decembe# 7, +,,4!@ .40 the lette# dated Ma#ch :, +,,3 of the complainant to the #espondent info#min' the latte# that she is te#minatin' his le'al se#vices effective immediatel%@ .30 the lette# of complainant to the Cle#8 of Cou#t of the R"C of 5ue6on Cit% (he#ein she #e&uested that !an% belated attempt b% m% fo#me# la(%e# Att%. Resu##eccion to file an% Petition fo# Annulment ) ) ) be #efused acceptance!@ and, .:0 the lette# dated ;ul% 2,, +,,- of complainant=s ne( counsel demandin' fo# an e)planation as to ho( #espondent intended to indemnif% the complainant fo# dama'es she had suffe#ed b% #eason of #espondent=s f#audulent mis#ep#esentations.*< In the face of such a se#ious cha#'e, the #espondent has chosen to #emain silent. "hus, (e find the confluence of the evidence submitted b% the complainant to have clea#l%, convincin'l% and satisfacto#il% sho(n that indeed the #espondent has autho#ed this #ep#ehensible act. Respondent committed deceitful and dishonest acts b% mis#ep#esentin' that he had al#ead% filed a petition fo# annulment on behalf of the complainant and poc8etin' the amount of P4+,,,,.,,. >e even (ent to the e)tent of p#esentin' to the complainant a supposed cop% of the petition dul% filed (ith the cou#t. Afte# he (as found out, he made himself sca#ce. >e i'no#ed all communications sent

to him b% the complainant. Afte# the disba#ment complaint (as filed, he failed to file his ans(e# despite due notice. >e totall% dis#e'a#ded the p#oceedin's befo#e the IBP despite #eceipt of summons. !"he act of #espondent in not filin' his ans(e# and i'no#in' the hea#in's set b% the Investi'atin' Commission, despite due notice, emphasi6ed his contempt fo# le'al p#oceedin's.! +, Be thus a'#ee (ith the obse#vation of the IBP Investi'atin' Commissione# that !such action of the #espondent is patentl% deceitful and dishonest, conside#in' fu#the# that he #eceived an amount of mone% f#om the complainant.!+* !"he natu#al instinct of man impels him to #esist an unfounded claim o# imputation and defend himself. It is totall% a'ainst ou# human natu#e to $ust #emain #eticent and sa% nothin' in the face of false accusations. >ence, silence in such cases is almost al(a%s const#ued as implied admission of the t#uth the#eof.!++ As ea#l% as In Re: Sotto,+2 this Cou#t held thatE ne of the &ualifications #e&ui#ed of a candidate fo# admission to the ba# is the possession of 'ood mo#al cha#acte#, and, (hen one (ho has al#ead% been admitted to the ba# clea#l% sho(s, b% a se#ies of acts, that he does not follo( such mo#al p#inciples as should 'ove#n the conduct of an up#i'ht pe#son, and that, in his dealin's (ith his clients and (ith the cou#ts, he dis#e'a#ds the #ule of p#ofessional ethics #e&ui#ed to be obse#ved b% eve#% atto#ne%, it is the dut% of the cou#t, as 'ua#dian of the inte#ests of societ%, as (ell as of the p#ese#vation of the ideal standa#d of p#ofessional conduct, to ma8e use of its po(e#s to dep#ive him of his p#ofessional att#ibutes (hich he so un(o#thil% abused. In addition, Rule *.,* of the Code of P#ofessional Responsibilit% states that !a la(%e# shall not en'a'e in unla(ful, dishonest, immo#al o# deceitful conduct.! !"he Code e)acts f#om la(%e#s not onl% a fi#m #espect fo# la(, le'al p#ocesses but also mandates the utmost de'#ee of fidelit% and 'ood faith in dealin' (ith clients and the mone%s ent#usted to them pu#suant to thei# fiducia#% #elationship.!+4 Pu#suant to Section +-, Rule *27 of the Rules of Cou#t, #espondent ma% eithe# be disba##ed o# suspended fo# committin' deceitful and dishonest acts. "husE SEC. +-. Disba#ment o# suspension of atto#ne%s b% Sup#eme Cou#t@ '#ounds the#efo#. / A membe# of the ba# ma% be disba##ed o# suspended f#om his office as atto#ne% b% the Sup#eme Cou#t fo# an% deceit, malp#actice, o# othe# '#oss misconduct in such office, '#ossl% immo#al conduct, o# b% #eason of his conviction of a c#ime involvin' mo#al tu#pitude, o# fo# an% violation of the oath (hich he is #e&ui#ed to ta8e befo#e admission to p#actice, o# fo# a (ilful disobedience of an% la(ful o#de# of a supe#io# cou#t, o# fo# co##uptl% o# (ilfull% appea#in' as an atto#ne% fo# a pa#t% to a case (ithout autho#it% to do so. "he p#actice of solicitin' cases at la( fo# the pu#pose of 'ain, eithe# pe#sonall% o# th#ou'h paid a'ents o# b#o8e#s, constitutes malp#actice. CEmphasis supplied.D It is thus clea# f#om the fo#e'oin' p#ovision that in an% of the follo(in' ci#cumstances, to (itE (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct; ( ) grossly immoral conduct; (!) conviction o" a crime involving moral turpitude; (#) violation o" t$e la%yer&s oat$; (') %il"ul diso(edience o" any la%"ul order o" a superior court; or ()) corruptly or %il"ully appearing as an attorney "or a party to a case %it$out aut$ority to do so; the Cou#t is vested (ith the autho#it% and disc#etion to impose eithe# the e)t#eme penalt% of disba#ment o# me#e suspension. Ce#tainl%, the Cou#t is not placed in a st#ait$ac8et as #e'a#ds the penalt% to be imposed. "he#e is no i#onclad #ule that disba#ment must immediatel% follo( upon a findin' of deceit o# '#oss misconduct. "he Cou#t is not mandated to automaticall% impose the

e)t#eme penalt% of disba#ment. It is allo(ed b% la( to e)e#cise its disc#etion eithe# to disba# o# $ust suspend the e##in' la(%e# based on its app#eciation of the facts and ci#cumstances of the case. Be e)amined the #eco#ds of the case and assessed the evidence p#esented b% the complainant. Afte# such e)amination and assessment, (e a#e convinced be%ond doubt that #espondent should onl% be meted the penalt% of fou#/%ea# suspension as p#ope#l% #ecommended b% the IBP Boa#d of 1ove#no#s. In the e)e#cise of ou# disc#etion, (e a#e un&uestionabl% ce#tain that the fou#/%ea# suspension suffices and commensu#able to the inf#actions he committed. As (ill be pointed out late#, the#e have been cases (ith mo#e o# less the same factual settin' as in the instant case (he#e the Cou#t also imposed the penalt% of suspension and not disba#ment. Be have 'one ove# $u#isp#udential #ulin's (he#e the #espondents (e#e found 'uilt% of '#ave misconduct andAo# dishonest% and (e obse#ve that the Cou#t eithe# disba#s o# suspends them based on its collective app#eciation of attendant ci#cumstances and in the e)e#cise of its sound disc#etion. In *arcia v. Atty. +anuel,+3 the Cou#t found #espondent the#ein to have committed dishonest% and abused the confidence+: of his client fo# failin' to file the e$ectment suit despite as8in' fo# and #eceivin' f#om the complainant the mone% intended as filin' fees. In his bid fo# e)one#ation, the#ein #espondent attempted to mislead the Cou#t b% claimin' that he has not %et #eceived the #e'ist#% #etu#n ca#d of the notice to vacate hence his failu#e to file the e$ectment suit. >o(eve#, the #eco#ds indubitabl% sho(ed that he had al#ead% #eceived the same. Mo#eove#, the#ein #espondent li8e(ise #efused to #etu#n the monies he #eceived f#om the complainant despite #epeated demands. +-"he Cou#t thus concluded that the#ein #espondentFs actions constitute '#oss misconduct. Neve#theless, based on its app#eciation of the evidence, the Cou#t #ef#ained f#om imposin' the penalt% of disba#ment. Instead, it imposed the penalt% of suspension f#om the p#actice of la( fo# a pe#iod of si) months, #atiocinatin' thusE Complainant as8s that #espondent be disba##ed. >o(eve#, (e find that suspension f#om the p#actice of la( is sufficient to discipline #espondent. "he sup#eme penalt% of disba#ment is meted out onl% in clea# cases of misconduct that se#iousl% affect the standin' and cha#acte# of the la(%e# as an office# of the cou#t and membe# of the ba#. Bhile (e (ill not hesitate to #emove an e##in' atto#ne% f#om the esteemed b#othe#hood of la(%e#s, (he#e the evidence calls fo# it, (e (ill also not disba# him (he#e a lesse# penalt% (ill suffice to accomplish the desi#ed end. In this case, (e find suspension to be sufficient sanction a'ainst #espondent. Suspension, (e ma% add, is not p#ima#il% intended as punishment, but as a means to p#otect the public and the le'al p#ofession. +7 In ,eni-a v. Ru(ia,+< #espondent the#ein (as alle'ed to have mis#ep#esented havin' al#ead% filed in cou#t the necessa#% complaint b% sho(in' the cop% of the complaint stamped !#eceived! (ith a doc8et numbe# the#eon.2,>o(eve#, upon ve#ification (ith the app#op#iate cou#t, it (as discove#ed that none (as filed.2* It (as also noted that #espondent the#ein p#ompted the complainant to bo##o( mone% f#om a thi#d pa#t% $ust to be able to pa% he# atto#ne%Fs fees. Bhen the case #eached this Cou#t, it imposed the penalt% of suspension and not disba#ment. In so doin', the Cou#t lent mo#e c#edence to the e)planation of the #espondent that the case (as !(ithd#a(n! afte# it had been stamped !#eceived! b% the cou#t. In Roa v. +oreno,2+ the Cou#t found #espondent the#ein 'uilt% of '#oss misconduct and dishonest%. >e issued a bo'us Ce#tificate of Gand ccupanc% to the complainant 22 and #efused to #etu#n the amount paid b% the complainant.24 9o# said inf#actions, the Cou#t meted him (ith the penalt% of suspension f#om the p#actice of la( fo# t(o %ea#s.23

In .arcenas v. Alvero,2: #espondent failed to deposit in cou#t the amount of P 2,,,,,,.,, (hich he #eceived f#om his client supposedl% as #edemption p#ice. >e also failed to #etu#n the amount despite #epeated demands. >e (as suspended fo# t(o %ea#s. In Small v. .anares2- #espondent #eceived P7,,,,,.,, f#om complainant fo# his le'al se#vices and as filin' fees. >e ho(eve# failed to file the necessa#% complaint and (as neve# hea#d f#om a'ain. >e (as thus suspended f#om the p#actice of la( fo# t(o %ea#s. In /udge Angeles v. Atty. 0y1 /r.,27 the#ein #espondent failed to p#omptl% #epo#t that he #eceived mone% on behalf of his client. >o(eve#, fo# lac8 of evidence of misapp#op#iation, he (as onl% suspended and not disba##ed. In *onato v. Atty. Ada-a,2< Att%. Ada6a as8ed mone% f#om his client supposedl% as filin' fees (hen in fact no such filin' fees a#e needed o# due. Bo#se, he issued a falsified !official #eceipt! as p#oof of pa%ment. 9inall%, (hen he (as discove#ed, he failed to heed his clientFs demand to #etu#n the amount. 9o# such inf#actions, Att%. Ada6a (as suspended fo# a pe#iod of si) months. In A2uino v. Atty. .arcelona,4, Att%. Ba#celona delibe#atel% mis#ep#esented to his client that he (as able to successfull% facilitate the #est#uctu#in' of his client=s loan (ith a ban8 th#ou'h his !connection!. n the basis of said false p#etenses, he collected P :,,,,,.,, f#om his client. >is client eventuall% became a(a#e of such mis#ep#esentations (hen his p#ope#t% (as fo#eclosed b% the ban8. Att%. Ba#celona (as thus cha#'ed (ith misconduct and fo# (hich he (as suspended b% the Cou#t fo# a pe#iod of si) months. "he fo#e'oin' cases illust#ate that the Cou#t is not bound to impose the penalt% of disba#ment in cases of '#oss misconduct andAo# dishonest%, if in its app#eciation of facts and in the e)e#cise of its sound disc#etion, the penalt% of suspension (ould be mo#e commensu#ate. 4* !Disba#ment, $u#isp#udence teaches, should not be dec#eed (he#e an% punishment less seve#e, such as #ep#imand, suspension, o# fine, (ould accomplish the end desi#ed. "his is as it should be conside#in' the conse&uence of disba#ment on the economic life and hono# of the e##in' pe#son.! 4+ In this case, (e believe that the penalt% of suspension of fou# %ea#s (ill p#ovide Att%. Resu##eccion !(ith enou'h time to ponde# on and cleanse himself of his misconduct.! 42 !Bhile (e (ill not hesitate to #emove an e##in' atto#ne% f#om the esteemed b#othe#hood of la(%e#s, (he#e the evidence calls fo# it, (e (ill also not disba# him (he#e a lesse# penalt% (ill suffice to accomplish the desi#ed end.!44 Be note that the#e is no mention in the #eco#ds of an% p#evious o# simila# administ#ative case filed a'ainst he#ein #espondent. Anent the issue of (hethe# #espondent should be di#ected to #etu#n the amount of P 4+,,,,.,, he #eceived f#om the complainant, (e note that the #ulin's of this Cou#t in this matte# have been dive#se. n one hand, the#e a#e cases (he#e this Cou#t di#ected #espondents to #etu#n the mone% the% #eceived f#om the complainants. n the othe# hand, the#e a#e also cases (he#e this Cou#t #ef#ained f#om ventu#in' into this matte# on the '#ound that the same is not (ithin the ambit of its disciplina#% autho#it% as the onl% issue in administ#ative cases is the fitness of the la(%e# to #emain a membe# of the ba#. No( is the most oppo#tune time to ha#moni6e the Cou#tFs #ulin' on this matte#. "hus, it is impe#ative to fi#st dete#mine (hethe# the matte# falls (ithin the disciplina#% autho#it% of the Cou#t o# (hethe# the matte# is a p#ope# sub$ect of $udicial action a'ainst la(%e#s. If the matte# involves violations of the la(%e#=s oath and code of conduct, then it falls (ithin the Cou#t=s disciplina#% autho#it%. >o(eve#, if the matte# a#ose f#om acts (hich ca##% civil o# c#iminal liabilit%, and (hich do not di#ectl% #e&ui#e an in&ui#% into the mo#al fitness of the la(%e#, then the matte# (ould be a p#ope# sub$ect of a $udicial action (hich is unde#standabl% outside the pu#vie( of the Cou#t=s disciplina#% autho#it%. "hus, (e

hold that (hen the matte# sub$ect of the in&ui#% pe#tains to the mental and mo#al fitness of the #espondent to #emain as membe# of the le'al f#ate#nit%, the issue of (hethe# the #espondent be di#ected to #etu#n the amount #eceived f#om his client shall be deemed (ithin the Cou#t=s disciplina#% autho#it%. In this case, #espondent #eceived the amount of P4+,,,,.,, supposedl% as pa%ment fo# his le'al se#vices and as filin' fees. Canon *: of the Code of P#ofessional Responsibilit% p#ovidesE CAN N *: H A GABIER S>AGG > GD IN "RJS" AGG M NEIS AND PR PER"IES CGIEN" ">A" MAI C ME IN" >IS P SSESSI N. 9 >IS

Rule *:.,* H A la(%e# shall account fo# all mone% o# p#ope#t% collected o# #eceived fo# o# f#om the client. )))) Rule *:.,2 H A la(%e# shall delive# the funds and p#ope#t% of his client (hen due o# upon demand. ) )) In this case, it is thus clea# that #espondent violated his la(%e#=s oath and code of conduct (hen he (ithheld the amount of P 4+,,,,.,, despite his failu#e to #ende# the necessa#% le'al se#vices and afte# complainant demanded its #etu#n. >e must the#efo#e be di#ected to #etu#n the same. 9inall%, (e emphasi6e that !the ob$ect of a disba#ment p#oceedin' is not so much to punish the individual atto#ne% himself, as to safe'ua#d the administ#ation of $ustice b% p#oceedin' the cou#t and the public f#om the misconduct of office#s of the cou#t, and to #emove f#om the p#ofession of la( pe#sons (hose dis#e'a#d fo# thei# oath of office has p#oved them unfit to continue discha#'in' the t#ust #espect in them as membe#s of the ba#.!43 $%ERE&ORE, #espondent Att%. Edua#do D. Resu##eccion is o#de#ed SUSPENDED f#om the p#actice of la( fo# fou# %ea#s. >e is also DIRECTED to #etu#n to the complainant the amount of P4+,,,,.,, (ithin thi#t% .2,0 da%s f#om the p#omul'ation of this Decision. Get a cop% of this Decision be fu#nished the ffice of the Ba# Confidant and the Inte'#ated Ba# of the Philippines fo# thei# info#mation and 'uidance. "he Cou#t Administ#ato# is di#ected to ci#culate this Decision to all cou#ts in the count#%. S RDERED.