The Supreme Court has ruled that an attorney’s gross negligence, dishonesty, and engagement in legal practice while under suspension constitute grave misconduct, warranting disbarment. This decision underscores the high ethical standards demanded of legal professionals and protects clients from unscrupulous practices, ensuring accountability and preserving the integrity of the legal profession.

When a Lawyer’s Duty Turns to Betrayal: A Case of Neglect and Deceit

In September 2000, Adelita B. Llunar hired Atty. Romulo Ricafort to recover a parcel of land in Albay fraudulently registered under the name of Ricardo Cervantes and later transferred to his son, Ard. The property was already under foreclosure proceedings. Llunar paid Ricafort P70,000 for partial redemption, P19,000 for filing fees, and P6,500 as attorney’s fees. Three years later, Llunar discovered that Ricafort had not filed any case. Ricafort claimed another lawyer, Atty. Edgar M. Abitria, had filed a case, and offered to return only part of the money, deducting P50,000 allegedly paid to Abitria. Llunar also discovered Ricafort had been suspended indefinitely from legal practice since May 29, 2002. This led to the filing of an administrative case against Ricafort for gross negligence and serious misconduct.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the case and found Ricafort guilty of violating Canons 15 and 17, and Rules 1.01, 16.03, 18.03, and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). These provisions emphasize candor, fairness, loyalty, and diligence in dealing with clients. Specifically, Rule 18.03 states that “a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”

The IBP initially recommended indefinite suspension, but later modified the penalty to disbarment, ordering Ricafort to return P95,000 to Llunar. Ricafort argued that Llunar knew about Atty. Abitria’s involvement and that he paid Abitria P50,000, as confirmed by Abitria’s affidavit. However, the IBP denied Ricafort’s motion for reconsideration, leading to the Supreme Court’s review.

The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings, holding Ricafort guilty of grave misconduct and imposing the ultimate penalty of disbarment. The Court emphasized that Ricafort’s actions constituted several infractions, including failing to act promptly in redeeming the property and delaying the filing of a complaint for three years. This violated Rule 18.03 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him.

Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Moreover, Ricafort failed to return the amounts given to him by Llunar, violating Canon 16 of the CPR, which mandates lawyers to hold client’s money in trust and account for it. As Canon 16 states, a lawyer must “hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession” and must “account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.”

The Supreme Court cited Espiritu v. Ulep, 497 Phil. 339, 345 (2005), clarifying that failure to return funds upon demand raises a presumption of misappropriation. Ricafort’s lack of candor in not disclosing his suspension also violated Canon 15 of the CPR, which requires lawyers to observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all dealings with clients.

Canon 15 states that “a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.” By accepting Llunar’s case knowing he was suspended, Ricafort demonstrated a lack of the candor expected of a member of the Bar. His engagement in legal practice while suspended further aggravated his offenses. This was not his first offense; in Nuñez v. Atty. Ricafort, 432 Phil. 131 (2002), he was previously suspended indefinitely for grave misconduct. Given his repeat violations, the Court found disbarment the only appropriate penalty.

The Court ordered Ricafort to return the full P95,000 to Llunar, regardless of whether she consented to Atty. Abitria’s engagement. The Court reasoned that this additional expense would not have been necessary had Ricafort been diligent from the start. This decision underscores the principle that lawyers must be accountable for their negligence and cannot pass on the consequences of their inaction to their clients.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Ricafort’s actions, including gross negligence, dishonesty, and practicing law while suspended, constituted grave misconduct warranting disbarment.
What did Atty. Ricafort do wrong?	Atty. Ricafort neglected Llunar’s case, failed to return the money she gave him, did not disclose his suspension, and continued to practice law while suspended.
What is Canon 15 of the CPR?	Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all dealings and transactions with their clients.
What is Rule 18.03 of the CPR?	Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
What was the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Romulo Ricafort from the practice of law and ordered him to return P95,000 to Adelita B. Llunar.
Why was Atty. Ricafort disbarred instead of suspended?	Atty. Ricafort was disbarred because he was a repeat offender, having previously been suspended indefinitely for similar misconduct.
What is the significance of this ruling?	The ruling reinforces the high ethical standards required of lawyers and protects clients from negligent and dishonest practices.
What should clients do if their lawyer is negligent?	Clients who experience negligence from their lawyer should file an administrative case with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and seek legal advice from another attorney.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the responsibilities and ethical obligations that lawyers must uphold. The Supreme Court’s decision to disbar Atty. Ricafort underscores the importance of maintaining integrity and competence in the legal profession. It reaffirms the commitment to protecting the public from unethical and negligent legal practitioners.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ADELITA B. LLUNAR VS. ATTY. ROMULO RICAFORT, A.C. No. 6484, June 16, 2015