EN BANC
A.C. No. 11149 (Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3709), August 15, 2017
LAURENCE D. PUNLA AND MARILYN SANTOS, Complainants, v. ATTY. ELEONOR MARAVILLA-ONA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
In a complaint-affidavit filed on 15 January 2013, complainants alleged that they got to know respondent lawyer sometime in January 2012 when they requested her to notarize a Deed of Sale; that subsequently, they broached the idea to respondent that they intend (sic) to file two (2) annulment cases and they wanted respondent to represent them; that respondent committed to finish the two (2) annulment cases within six (6) months from full payment; that the agreed lawyer's fee for the two annulment cases is P350,000.00; that the P350,000.00 was paid in full by complainants, as follows: P100,000.00 on 27 January 2012 as evidenced by respondent's Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 55749 of even date (Annex "A"); P150,000.00 on 28 January 2012 as evidenced by respondent's Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 56509 of even date (Annex "B"); P50,000.00 on 14 March 2012 personally handed to respondent lawyer and evidenced by respondent's handwritten acknowledgement receipt of same date (Annex "C"); and, P50,000.00 on 15 March 2012 deposited to respondent's Metrobank account no. 495-3-49509141-5 (Annex "D").In an Order4 dated January 25, 2013, the IBP directed respondent to file her Answer within 15 days. No answer was filed. A Mandatory Conference/Hearing was set on December 4, 20135 but respondent did not appear, so it was reset to January 22, 2014.6 However, respondent again failed to attend the mandatory conference/hearing as scheduled. Hence, in an Order7 dated January 22, 2014, the mandatory conference was terminated and both parties were directed to submit their verified position papers.
On the commitment of respondent that she will (sic) finish the cases in six (6) months, complainants followed up their cases in September 2012 or about 6 months from their last payment in March 2012. They were ignored by respondent. On 25 September 2012, complainants sent a letter (Annex "E") to respondent demanding that the P3 50,000.00 they paid her be refunded in full within five (5) days from receipt of the letter. In a Certification dated 07 November 2012 (Annex "F"), the Philpost of Dasmariñas, Cavite, attested that complainants' letter was received by respondent on 01 October 2012. No refund was made by respondent.3
There is clear violation of Canons 17 and 18, Canons of Professional Responsibility. These canons, quoted hereunder, [state]:In addition, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found that respondent has been charged with several infractions. Thus:CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.Of particular concern is Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to always keep the client informed of the developments in his case and to respond whenever the client requests for information. Respondent has miserably failed to comply with this Canon.9
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Moreover, verification conducted by this Office shows that this is not the first time that respondent lawyer has been administratively charged before this Office. As shown in the table below, respondent is involved in the following active cases:Consequently, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred and ordered to pay complainants the amount of P350,000.00 with legal interest until fully paid.11
COMPLAINANTS CASE NO. STATUS PENALTY WHEN FILEDTen (10) consolidated cases:
1. Felisa Amistoso, et al.
2. Anita Lagman
3. Isidro H. Montoya
4. Noel Angcao
5. Mercedes Bayan
6. Rustica Canuel
7. Anita Canuel
8. Elmer Canuel
9. Evangeline Sangalang
10. Felisa Amistoso
A.C. No. 6369
A.C. No. 6371
A.C. No. 6458
A.C. No. 6459
A.C. No. 6460
A.C. No. 6462
A.C. No. 6457
A.C. No. 6463
A.C. No. 6464
A.C. No. 6469
Pending with Supreme Court
Suspension11. Beatrice Yatoo, et al. CBD Case No. 10-2733 Pending with Supreme Court Suspension July 26, 201012. Norma Guiterrez CBD Case No. 12-3444 For report and recommendation May 23, 201213. Bienvenida Flor Suarez CBD Case No. 12-3534 For report and recommendation August 01, 2012
Clearly, respondent lawyer has been a serial violator of the Canons of Professional Responsibility as shown in the thirteen (13) pending cases filed against her. Add to that the present case and that places the total pending administrative cases against respondent at fourteen (14). That these 14 cases were filed on different dates and by various individuals is substantial proof that respondent has the propensity to violate her lawyer's oath - and has not changed in her professional dealing with the public.10
Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do x x x.Here, there is no question as to respondent's guilt. It is clear from the records thatrespondentviolatedher lawyer's oath and codeofconduct when she withheld from complainants the amount of P350,000.00 given to her, despite her failure to render the necessary legal services, and after complainants demanded its return.
x x x In A.C. No. 10107 entitled Beatrice C. Yatco, represented by her Attorney-In-Fact, Marivic Yatco v. Atty. Eleanor Maravilla-Ona, the complainant filed a disbarment case against Atty. Maravilla-Ona for issuing several worthless checks as rental payments for the complainant's property and for refusing to vacate the said property, thus forcing the latter to file an ejectment case against Atty. Maravilla-Ona. The IBP required Atty. Maravilla-Ona to file her Answer, but she failed to do so. Neither did she make an appearance during the scheduled mandatory conference. In its Resolution dated February 13, 2013, the IBP found Atty. Maravilla-Ona guilty of serious misconducty and for violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code. The Court later adopted and approved the IBP's findings in its Resolution of September 15, 2014, and suspended Atty. Maravilla-Ona from the practice of law for a period of one year.Back to the case at bar: While indeed respondent's condemnable acts ought to merit the penalty of disbarment, we cannot disbar her anew, for in this jurisdiction we do not impose double disbarment.
In yet another disbarment case against Atty. Maravilla-Ona, docketed as A.C. No. 10944[,] and entitled Norma M. Gutierrez v. Atty. Eleonor Maravilla-Ona, the complainant therein alleged that she engaged the services of Atty. Maravilla-Ona and gave her the amount of P80,000.00 for the filing of a case in court. However, Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed to file the case, prompting the complainant to withdraw from the engagement and to demand the return of the amount she paid. Atty. Maravilla-Ona returned P15,000.00[,] and executed a promissory note to pay the remaining P65,000.00. However, despite several demands, Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed to refund completely the complainant's money. Thus, a complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty. Maravilla-Ona for grave misconduct, gross negligence and incompetence. But again, Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed to file her Answer and [to] appear in the mandatory conference before the IBP. The IBP found that Atty. Maravilla-Ona violated Canon 16, Rule 16.03 of the Code [of Professional Responsibility] and recommended her suspension for a period of five (5) years, considering her previous infractions. The Court, however, reduced Atty. Maravilla-Ona's penalty to suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. She was also ordered to return the complainant's money.
Clearly, Atty. Maravilla-Ona exhibits the habit of violating her oath as a lawyer and the Code [of Professional Responsibility], as well as defying the processes of the IBP. The Court cannot allow her blatant disregard of the Code [of Professional Responsibility] and her sworn duty as a member of the Bar to continue. She had been warned that a similar violation [would] merit a more severe penalty, and yet, her reprehensible conduct has, again, brought embarrassment and dishonor to the legal profession.16
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-4.
2 Id. at 20-24.
3 Id. at 21.
4 Id. at 10.
5 Id. at 11.
6 Id. at 13.
7 Id. at 15.
8 Id. at 23.
9 Id. at 23-24.
10 Id. at 22-23.
11 Id. at 24.
12 Id. at 18.
13Olayta-Camba v. Atty. Bongon, 757 Phil. 1, 5-6 (2015).
14Llunar v. Ricafort, A.C. No. 6484, June 16, 2015, 757 SCRA 614, 620.
15 A.C. No. 11064, September 27, 2016.
16 Id. at 6-7.
17Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).
LEONEN, J.:
Endnotes:
1 A.C. No. 11064, September 27, 2016, [Per Curiam, En Banc].
2 748 Phil. 18 (2014) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
3 Id. at 24.
4 A.C. No. 5333, March 13, 2017, [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
5 Id. at 7.
6People v. Peralta, 134 Phil. 703, 731 (1968) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
7See Rev. Pen. Code, art. 70, which states:
Art. 70. Successive service of sentences. - When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit; otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or should they have been served out.
....
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the said maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
8 134 Phil. 703, 731 (1968) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
9 Id. at 731.
10 Id.
11In The Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Pete C. Lagran, 415 Phil. 506, 510 (2001) [Per J. Puno, First Division].