Adelita R Llunar vs Atty Romulo Ricafort

AC No. 6484 - June 16 2015

Facts:
In September, 2000, Adelita engaged the services of Atty. Romulo Ricafort for the
recovery of a parcel of land owned by the Banez family but which was fraudulently
registered to a different name. The lot was the subject of foreclosure proceedings,
hence, Adelita gave to Atty. Ricafort the amount of P95,000.00 (partial redemption fee,
as filing fees, and attorneys fees). Three years later, complainant learned that Atty.
Ricafort did not file any case with the RTC of Legazpi City, hence, she demanded the
return of P95,000.00. The latter averred that there was a complaint for annulment of title
filed against Ard Cervantes, though not him, but by another lawyer. Thus, he was
willing to refund the amount less the P50,000.00 which he gave to Atty. Abitria. Adelita
refused to recognize the case filed by Atty. Abitria, insisting she did not hire him as
counsel; also, the complaint was filed three years late and the property cannot be
redeemed from the bank anymore. She also learned that Atty. Ricafort was indefinitely
suspended from the practice of law since 2002 in A.C. No. 5054, thus she suspected it
was the reason why another lawyer filed the case.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Ricafort is guilty of misconduct for practicing law under indefinite
suspension?
Ruling:
Yes. The respondent is found guilty of Grave Misconduct in his dealings with his
client and in engaging in the practice of law while under indefinite suspension,
and thus impose upon him the ultimate penalty of DISBARMENT.
The respondent committed dishonesty by not being forthright with the complainant that
he was under indefinite suspension from the practice of law. The respondent should
have disclosed this fact at the time he was approached by the complainant for his
services. Canon 15 of the CPR states that “a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.” The respondent lacked the
candor expected of him as a member of the Bar when he accepted the complainant’s
case despite knowing that he could not and should not practice law.