Adelita R Llunar vs Atty Romulo Ricafort

complainants

AC No. 6484 - June 16 2015

respondent violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of

The Facts:

Professional Responsibility (CPR), which states that a

In September, 2000, Adelita engaged the services of

lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to

Atty. Romulo Ricafort for the recovery of a parcel of

him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall

land owned by the Banez family but which was

render him liable.

fraudulently registered to a different name. The lot

Second,

was the subject of foreclosure proceedings, hence,

demand,

Adelita

of

complainant for handling the latters case. On three

P95,000.00 (partial redemption fee, as filing fees, and

separate occasions, the respondent received from the

attorneys fees).

complainant the amounts of P19,000.00, P70,000.00,

gave

to

Atty.

Ricafort

the

amount

Three years later, complainant

the

property.

Under

respondent

the

amounts

given

to

him

by

the

return of P95,000.00. The latter averred that there

necessary civil case/s against Ard Cervantes. The

was a complaint for annulment of title filed against

complainant

Ard Cervantes, though not him, but by another

times thereafter to follow up on the case/s to be filed

lawyer. Thus, he was willing to refund the amount

supposedly by the respondent who, in turn, reassured

less the P50,000.00 which he gave to Atty. Abitria.

her that actions on her case had been taken.

Adelita refused to recognize the case filed by Atty.

After the complainant discovered three years later

Abitria, insisting she did not hire him as counsel; also,

that the respondent had not filed any case in court,

the complaint was filed three years late and the

she demanded that the respondent return the amount

property

bank

of P95,000.00, but her demand was left unheeded.

anymore. She also learned that Atty. Ricafort was

The respondent later promised to pay her, but until

indefinitely suspended from the practice of law since

now, no payment of any amount has been made.

2002 in A.C. No. 5054, thus she suspected it was the

These facts confirm that the respondent violated

reason why another lawyer filed the case.

Canon 16 of the CPR, which mandates every lawyer to

The Issue:

hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client

Whether

or

not

Atty.

Ricafort

from

the

should

be

held

the

redeeming

upon

mortgaged property from the bank and filing the

approached

of

return,

the RTC of Legazpi City, hence, she demanded the

redeemed

purposes

to

the

and

be

for

failed

facts,

learned that Atty. Ricafort did not file any case with

cannot

P6,500.00

these

respondent

the

several

that may come into his possession and to account

1

administratively liable.

for all money or property collected or received for or

The Ruling:

from the client. In addition, a lawyers failure to

The

Grave

return upon demand the funds or property he holds

Misconduct in his dealings with his client and in

for his client gives rise to the presumption that he has

engaging in the practice of law while under

appropriated these funds or property for his own use

indefinite suspension, and thus impose upon

to the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust

him the ultimate penalty of DISBARMENT.

reposed in him by his client.

The respondent in this case committed several

Third, the respondent committed dishonesty by not

infractions

grave

being forthright with the complainant that he was

misconduct. First, the respondent did not exert due

under indefinite suspension from the practice of law.

diligence in handling the complainants case. He

The respondent should have disclosed this fact at the

failed to act promptly in redeeming the complainants

time he was approached by the complainant for his

property within the period of redemption. What is

services. Canon 15 of the CPR states that a lawyer

worse is the delay of three years before a complaint

shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his

to recover the property was actually filed in court. The

dealings and transactions with his clients. The

respondent clearly dilly-dallied on the complainants

respondent lacked the candor expected of him as a

case and wasted precious time and opportunity that

member

were

respondent

then

is

making

readily

found

him

guilty

liable

available

to

of

for

recover

the

of

the

Bar

when

he

accepted

the

complainants case despite knowing that he could not

penalty of suspension for five (5) years from the

and should not practice law.

practice of law would have been justified, but the

Lastly, the respondent was effectively in the practice

respondent

of law despite the indefinite suspension imposed on

professions ethical rules; he is a repeat violator of

him. This infraction infinitely aggravates the offenses

these rules.

he committed. Based on the above facts alone, the

is

not

an

ordinary

violator

of

the