Buere v. Ramon

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 10250. July 3, 2017.]

WILHELMINA B. BUERE, complainant,vs. ATTY. MARIE FRANCES E. RAMON, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 3, 2017, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 10250 (Wilhelmina B. Buere vs. Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon). — It appearing that Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon has failed to comply with the Resolution dated June 20, 2016 which (a) imposed upon her an additional fine of P1,000.00 for non-submission of comment on the complaint for disbarment required in the Resolution dated March 12, 2014 and (b) directed her to pay said fine together with the original fine of P1,000.00, and to submit the required comment on the complaint, within the period fixed therein which expired on August 6, 2016, the Court resolves to DISPENSE WITH the filing of respondent's comment on the disbarment complaint.

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Wilhelmina B. Buere against respondent Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon, a lawyer who worked for the Legal Department of the National Housing Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).

Facts

In 2012, complainant became interested in buying one of the properties available for foreclosure at the NHMFC. Thus, she reserved the said property in the name of her son, Jason Buere (Jayson). After completing the requirements for the reservation of the property, she proceeded to the NHMFC Legal Department to pay for litigation fees and expenses for the foreclosure proceedings. 1

Complainant was introduced to respondent at the NHMFC Legal Department. Respondent supposedly represented to complainant that she has been authorized by the NHMFC Board to accept payments for litigation fees and expenses directly from interested buyers and that she would be the one instituting the necessary foreclosure proceedings in court. Relying on these representations, complainant handed to respondent Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) to cover the litigation expenses. In return, respondent gave complainant an acknowledgment receipt, issued under the name of Jayson. 2

Complainant claims after her meeting with respondent, she called and visited NHMFC several times to follow up the status of the foreclosure proceedings. Respondent allegedly always assured her that the foreclosure proceedings would be initiated shortly. 3

However, sometime in July 2013, complainant was surprised to learn that respondent suddenly went absent without official leave (AWOL). She was informed by the NHMFC that her case folder was never processed and that it never received the money complainant entrusted to respondent. Further, the NHMFC advised complainant that it could not refund the amount she paid and that she should go after respondent. Further, the NHMFC advised the complainant it could not refund the amount she paid and that she should go after respondent because it was she who actually committed fraud. 4 CAIHTE

Complainant also learned that there were others like her who were defrauded by respondent. As with complainant, the NHMFC refused to recognize their transactions and dealings with respondent. 5

Thereafter, respondent met with complainant and the other distressed buyers and promised to settle all their concerns. Respondent allegedly admitted that she used all the money she collected for some personal purpose but promised that she will immediately return the said funds. 6

However, after the said meeting, the respondent again disappeared and could not be contacted. Complainant and the other distressed buyers even went to respondent's residence but were informed that she was not there to receive them. 7

Complainant filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman for misappropriation and abusing her authority as an official in the Legal Department of the NHMFC. 8

She also filed this complaint for disbarment where she stresses that respondent committed gross misconduct, violated the fiduciary nature of her relationship with her clients, and abused their confidence when she misappropriated the amounts entrusted to her. 9

Complainant prays that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and that she be ordered to return the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00). 10

On March 12, 2014, the Court issued a Resolution 11 requiring respondent to file her comment and furnish complainant with a copy thereof. However, respondent has not filed any comment, 12 as ordered.

Issue

Whether respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law.

The Court's Ruling

The allegations against respondent are insufficient to warrant her disbarment. The penalty of disbarment is too excessive and is not commensurate to the misconduct she committed.

Complainant insists that she was a client of NHMFC because she was a prospective buyer of a property that would undergo foreclosure proceedings. Further, respondent represented that she had the authority to receive payments for litigation expenses in behalf of NHMFC. Complainant asserts that respondent never planned to utilize the money received in trust from complainant for its intended purpose and, instead, respondent misappropriated the amount for her personal gain.

Hence, complainant contends that respondent violated Canon 16 of The Code of Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties collected or received from his client and account for the same.

The complainant's application of Canon 16 is misplaced since no lawyer-client relationship exists between the parties. It must be made clear that respondent worked as a lawyer of NHMFC and was never a lawyer of complainant. Nevertheless, respondent's act of misappropriating the money she received from complainant is misconduct on her part which reflected badly on her character and qualification as a lawyer.

Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such grounds. 13

Respondent clearly violated the lawyer's oath to obey laws and do no falsehood. Further, she violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 which states that a lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.

Respondent fell short of the standard for lawyers when she converted fees entrusted to her that were supposed to be turned over to NHMFC and used to defray expenses for the foreclosure proceedings.

However, it has been consistently held that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and the character of the bar will disbarment be imposed as a penalty. 14

Considering the foregoing premises, respondent's suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year is warranted. Further, she should be likewise ordered to return the money entrusted to her by complainant.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon is found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon her receipt of the Resolution. Atty. Ramon is also ordered to return the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) to complainant within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let copies be furnished all courts as well as the Office of the Bar Confidant, which is instructed to include a copy in respondent's file.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 3.

2.Id.

3.Id. at 4.

4.Id.

5.Id. at 5.

6.Id.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 8.

11.Id. at 22.

12.Id. at 23.

13.Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya, A.M. No. R-705-RTJ, etc., August 23, 1989, 175 SCRA 634.

14.Burbe v. Magulta, A.C. No. 5713, June 10, 2002, 383 SCRA 276, 286.