SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 10243, October 02, 2017
MYRNA OJALES, Complainant, v. ATTY. OBDULIO GUY D. VILLAHERMOSA III, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PERALTA, J.:
On July 15, 2011, complainant Myrna Ojales filed a Complaint1 against respondent Atty. Obdulio Guy Villahermosa III with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
In her Complaint, complainant Ojales stated that on February 26, 2010, she bought a parcel of land situated in Palinpinon, Valencia, Negros Occidental as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale2 notarized by respondent Atty. Villahermosa. Respondent volunteered to process the issuance of the title in complainant's name and assured her that the title would come out in two to three months.
On March 2, 2010, respondent received from complainant the total amount of P21,280.00 as evidenced by two receipts signed by respondent. The first receipt for P10,000.003 was for the payment of respondent's processing fee, and the second receipt for P11,280.004 was for the payment of the capital gains tax.
After five months, complainant went to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to inquire whether the capital gains tax on the sale of property was paid, but she was told that no document pertaining to a deed of sale in her favor was submitted to the BIR. So complainant went to the house of respondent, who assured her that her title would be ready by September 4, 2010. After September 4, 2010, complainant went back to the BIR, but she was again informed that no document of her transaction was submitted. She was advised to secure from respondent the claim slip normally issued by the BIR for such transaction. Thus, complainant asked respondent for the claim slip from the BIR, but respondent could not produce it and asked for another month to process her title. Finally, complainant went back to respondent's house to ask for a refund of her money, but she was instead scolded by respondent's wife. Hence, complainant filed this administrative case praying for the refund of the money she gave respondent and that the appropriate disciplinary action be imposed on the respondent.
On July 18, 2011, Director for Bar Discipline Alicia A. Risos-Vidal issued an Order5 directing respondent to answer the Complaint within 15 days from receipt of the Order. A copy of the Order was received by respondent on August 3, 2011 per the registry return receipt6 attached to the record. However, respondent did not file an Answer.
On October 10, 2011, a Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing scheduled on December 1, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. was sent to the parties. A copy of the Notice was received by the respondent on October 25, 2011 per the registry return receipt7 attached to the record. Only the complainant appeared at the scheduled mandatory conference.
On December 1, 2011, Commissioner Loreto C. Ata issued an Order8 declaring respondent in default and deemed to have waived his right to participate in the proceedings.
In a letter13 dated October 7, 2013, the Director for Bar Discipline notified the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the transmittal of the documents of the case to the Court and that no motion for reconsideration has been filed by either party.RESOLUTION NO. XX-2013-197
CBD Case No. 11-3096
Myrna Ojales vs. Atty. Obdulio Guy Villahermosa III
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules and considering respondent's failure to perform the legal matter entrusted to him nor returned the amount received from complainant and for his disrespect and disregard of the notices of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Obdulio Guy Villahermosa III is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.12
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.Moreover, despite complainant's demand that respondent return her money as he did not fulfill his obligation, respondent failed to do so, which is violative of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
x x x x
Rule 18.03. - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
In Barnachea v. Atty. Quiocho,15 the Court held:
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may come to his possession. He is a trustee to said funds and property. He is to keep the funds of his client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the registration of a deed with the Register of Deeds and for expenses and fees for the transfer of title over real property under the name of his client if not utilized, must be returned immediately to his client upon demand therefor. The lawyer's failure to return the money of his client upon demand gave rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated said money in violation of the trust reposed on him. x x x16Further, respondent failed to answer the complaint filed against him with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the IBP Negros Oriental Chapter and the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. He did not attend the mandatory conference held on December 1, 2011 despite notice. Respondent's failure to comply with the orders of the IBP without justifiable reason manifests his disrespect of judicial authorities.17 As a lawyer, he ought to know that the compulsory bar organization was merely deputized by this Court to undertake the investigation of complaints against lawyers.18 In short, his disobedience to the IBP is in reality a gross and blatant disrespect of the Court.19
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2Id. at 6-7.
3Id. at 9.
4Id. at 8.
5Id. at 11.
6Id. (back).
7Id. at 12 (back).
8Id. at 14.
9Id. at 30-35.
10Id. at 33, citing Rollon v. Atty. Naraval, 493 Phil. 24, 29 (2005).
11Id. at 34, citing Yu v. Atty. Palaña, 580 Phil. 19, 28 (2008).
12Rollo, p. 29.
13Id. at 28.
14Id. at 8-9.
15 447 Phil. 67 (2003).
16Barnachea v. Atty. Quiocho, supra at 75.
17Yu v. Atty. Palaña, supra note 11, at 28.
18Id.
19Id.