SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No.11156 [Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3680], March 19, 2018
MICHELLE YAP, Complainant, v. ATTY. GRACE C. BURI, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
The instant case stemmed from the complaint of Michelle Yap against respondent Atty. Grace C. Buri for refusing to pay her monetary obligation and for filing a criminal case of Estafa against her based on false accusations.
The factual backdrop of the case is as follows:
Complainant Michelle Yap was the vendor in a contract of sale of a condominium unit, while Atty. Grace C. Buri, Yap's close friend and her daughter's godmother, was the vendee. Buri made an offer to purchase the property but asked for the reduction of the price from P1,500,000.00 to P1,200,000.00. After consulting with her husband, Yap agreed. Of the total amount of purchase price of P1,200,000.00, P200,000.00 remains unpaid; Buri insisted that she would just pay the balance on installment starting in but without specifying the amount to be paid on each installment. Because she trusted the respondent, Yap gave Buri the full and immediate possession of the condominium unit upon completion of the P1,000,000.00 despite the outstanding balance and even without the necessary Deed of Absolute Sale. However, when Yap finally asked for the balance in January 2011, Buri said she would pay it on a monthly installment of P5,000.00 until fully paid. When Yap disagreed, Buri said she would just cancel the sale. Thereafter, Buri also started threatening her through text messages, and then later on filed a case for estafa against her.
Buri alleged in the criminal case that when she found out that the sale of the condominium unit was made without the consent of Yap's husband, Yap cancelled the sale and promised to return the amount of P1,000,000.00 initially paid. Despite several demands, however, she failed and refused to return the money. Thus, Buri was constrained to file a case for estafa against Yap. Said case was later dismissed.
Yap then filed an administrative complaint against Buri for the alleged false accusations against her.
When ordered to submit her answer, Buri failed to comply. She did not even appear during the mandatory conference. Thus, the mandatory conference was terminated and the parties were simply required to submit their respective position papers. However, only Yap complied with said order.
On July 2, 2014, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended Buri's suspension to wit:1
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, undersigned Commissioner recommends to impose the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months upon the respondent, Atty. Grace C. Buri, and for her to pay the complainant the amount of PhP200,000.00 upon execution by complainant and spouse of the Deed of Absolute Sale of the condominium unit subject of the sale between the parties.On January 31, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXI-2015-062,2 which adopted the foregoing recommendation but with modification, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A," finding Respondent's violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, Atty. Grace C. Buri is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year. The order to pay P200,000.00 is deleted without prejudice to the filing of proper action by Complainant in Court.
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.While Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the CPR state:
Rule 1.01 -A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
xxxx
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.The foregoing canons require of Buri, as a lawyer, an enduring high sense of responsibility and good fidelity in all her dealings and emphasize the high standard of honesty and fairness expected of her, not only in the practice of the legal profession, but in her personal dealings as well. A lawyer must conduct himself with great propriety, and his behavior should be beyond reproach anywhere and at all times. For, as officers of the courts and keepers of the public's faith, they are burdened with the highest degree of social responsibility and are thus mandated to behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor. Likewise, the oath that lawyers swear to impresses upon them the duty of exhibiting the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor in their relationships with others. Thus, lawyers may be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their professional or in their private capacity, if such conduct renders them unfit to continue to be officers of the court.5
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Endnotes:
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
1 Report and Recommendation submitted by Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III dated July 2, 2014; rollo, pp. 38-39.
2Rollo, pp. 36-37.
3Pitcher v. Atty. Gagate, 719 Phil. 82, 93 (2013).
4Rollon v. Atty. Naraval, 493 Phil. 24, 31 (2005).
5Ong v. Ally. Delos Santos, 728 Phil. 332, 339 (2014).
6Id. at 340.
7Tabang v. Atty. Gacott, 713 Phil. 578, 593 (2013).
8Eustaquio v. Atty. Rimorin, 447 Phil. 549, 555 (2003).
9Villanueva v. Atty. Gonzales, 568 Phil. 379, 388 (2008).
10Yuson v. Atty. Vitan, 528 Phil. 939, 952 (2006).
11Pitcher v. Atty. Gagate, supra note 3, at 94.