FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10424. May 5, 2021.]
LUCINDA I. EREÑETA AND JAEREL I. EREÑETA, complainants, vs.ATTY. RONALDO P. SALVADO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 5, 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10424 (Lucinda I. Ereñeta and Jaerel I. Ereñeta, Complainants, v. Atty. Ronaldo P. Salvado, Respondent.) — This is an administrative complaint 1 for disbarment filed by Lucinda I. Ereñeta and Jaerel I. Ereñeta (Jaerel; collectively, complainants) against Atty. Ronaldo P. Salvado (Atty. Salvado) for violation of Canons 15, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) docketed as CBD Case No. 15-4691.
Antecedents
The Complaint-Affidavit executed by complainants is substantially reproduced as follows:
1. This complaint is against Atty. Ronaldo P. Salvado, with residence address at No. 28 Madonna Lane, Monterey Hills Subdivision, San Mateo, Rizal;
2. Last June 2013, we decided to sell our property located at No. 32 Lourdes Drive, La Milagrosa Village, Marikina City; the property was previously mortgaged to a certain individual;
3. We went to the Marikina City Legal Office to seek help and legal advice regarding our property. We were assisted by one Vannie Salvado wherein he immediately mentioned that his brother, Atty. Ronaldo Salvado, specializes in the processing of transfer and registration of land titles;
4. On July 8, 2013, a meeting with Atty. Ronaldo Salvado was set thru his brother Vannie Salvado at Starbucks, Blue Wave, Marikina City;
5. Atty. Salvado explained that considering the property was already mortgaged he can secure a new title and have it issued under [Lucinda Ereñeta's] name and no longer with [Lucinda's] deceased husband's name, Jaime Ereñeta who died on May 18, 1992;
6. On the same day, we decided to engage the services of Atty. Salvado and he promised to deliver the title within a month. We agreed that in exchange for his services, the payment will be a total of P600,000.00 which already includes documents such as capital gain, stamp tax, estate tax, realty tax, documentary stamp tax, transfer fee, and registration fee. The P600,000.00 payment for the legal services was also given in case in his law office MC LAW located at Corner Karen & Col. Divino St., Paliparan, Sta. Niño, Marikina City. x x x
7. One month passed and then Atty. Salvado advised that there was just a delay because the authorized person in the Registry of Deeds is not available. Thereafter, we tried to follow up the status of the title and he gave us different excuses for the delay that were all alibis;
8. During the last week of August 2013, we decided to go to the Registry of Deeds to check the status of our title and we were informed that no application for transfer of title was made for Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-N4811. The discovery that there was no application for transfer was to our utter dismay considering that we already spent P600,000.00 to Atty. Salvado; CAIHTE
9. We went to Atty. Salvado's law office for several times, but all our efforts to talk to him and confront him with what we found out with the Registry of Deeds proved to be futile and his office was also closed afterwards. We also tried to call him but he was avoiding all our calls until on September 30, 2013 we went to his residential address at No. 28 Madonna Lane, Monterey Hills Subdivision, San Mateo, Rizal, he issued a Security Bank Check No. 0016785 amounting to P600,000.00 to return the money we paid him plus additional P50,000.00 x x x
10. On October 1, 2013, we went to Security Bank, C. Raymundo Pasig City branch to encash the check issued by Atty. Salvado but there was no sufficient funds in his account. We even waited from 9:00 am to 2:30 pm but nothing was deposited which made the check bounce and its was stamped with 'DAIF' (Drawn Against Insufficient Funds). We even sent a demand letter to Atty. Salvado for him to have an opportunity to settle his liability against us but he merely ignored it. x x x
11. Atty. Ronaldo P. Salvado violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers, particularly CANON 15, Rule 15.06 'A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.'; CANON 17 'A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him; CANON 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 'A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable, 'A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.' 2
On 02 June 2014, the Court issued a Resolution directing Atty. Salvado to file his comment to the complaint for disbarment filed against him. 3 However. Atty. Salvado failed to submit his comment despite being given multiple opportunities to do so. Thus, on 18 April 2016, the Court dispensed with the filing of the said Comment and referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. 4
Report and Recommendation of the IBP
On 12 August 2015, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) issued an Order directing Atty. Salvado to file his Verified Answer to the complaint. Despite the Postmaster's Certification that a copy of said Order was served at his residence, 5 Atty. Salvado failed to file his Answer to the complaint. 6
After proceedings, Investigating Commissioner Juan Orendain Buted (Commissioner Buted) submitted his Report and Recommendation dated 20 April 2016, recommending that Atty. Salvado be found guilty of violating Canons 17 and 18 (18.03 & 18.04) and that a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for five (5) years be imposed upon him. 7
In particular, Commissioner Buted found that Atty. Salvado undertook to cause the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) under complainants' names within a month in exchange for a fee of Php600,000.00. Despite receiving the entire fee in cash, Atty. Salvado failed to deliver within the period promised. Complainants were also forced to constantly seek him out for updates. Out of frustration, they went to the Register of Deeds to check on the status of the transfer only to discover that no application had been filed on their behalf. Subsequent attempts to talk to Atty. Salvado were unsuccessful until finally, complainants were able to confront him at his residence. There, Atty. Salvado issued a check for Php650,000.00, representing the amount paid to him by complainants, plus an additional Php50,000.00. This check, however, was dishonored for insufficiency of funds, prompting complainants to send a demand letter for Atty. Salvado to pay the amount, but the latter ignored the same. 8
On 17 June 2017, the Board of Governors of the IBP issued Resolution No. XXII-2017-1168 adopting the findings and recommendation of Commissioner Buted. 9
Three (3) months thereafter, or on 12 September 2017, complainant Jaerel 10 and Atty. Salvado filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration seeking the dismissal of the case. They claimed that they have entered into a Compromise Agreement and that Atty. Salvado has since made payments amounting to almost Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php200,000.00). 11 Thus, on 04 October 2018, the Board of Governors of the IBP reduced its recommended penalty to suspension from the practice of law for three (3) years and directed Atty. Salvado to ensure payment of the entire balance within one (1) year from receipt of the resolution. 12
On 09 September 2019, the parties filed a Joint Manifestation and Motion informing the Court that Atty. Salvado "had already fully paid and/or settled all his remaining obligations to the complainants, including accrued interests, way back December 2018." They thus reiterate their plea for the outright dismissal of the disbarment case against Atty. Salvado. 13
Issues
The issues for the Court's resolution are: (1) whether the case should be dismissed in view of the parties' reconciliation and the settlement of Atty. Salvado's obligations; and if not, (2) whether Atty. Salvado is liable for violating Canons 17 and 18 (18.03 & 18.04) of the CPR.
Ruling of the Court
It must be stressed, that the Court can still impose disciplinary sanctions despite withdrawal, desistance, or forgiveness by complainants who are merely witnesses to the inappropriate behavior of an erring lawyer. 14 As explained by the Court in Malute v. Selmo:
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis in that they are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they involve investigations by the court into the conduct of one of its officers, not the trial of an action or a suit. The only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Our only concern is the determination of respondent's administrative liability.
In this case, respondent humiliated the complainant in public by unnecessarily shouting at and scolding the latter without provocation. Respondent also humiliated and even threatened the complainant's husband who was merely approaching them at the time of the incident.
Contrary to respondent's argument, the Affidavit of Desistance filed by complainant does not automatically amount to a ground for dismissal of the administrative complaint against him. It has been held that the filing of an Affidavit of Desistance by the complainant for lack of interest does not ipso facto result in the termination of an administrative case for suspension or disbarment of an erring lawyer. DETACa
Consequently, complainant's affidavit did not obliterate the fact that respondent's utterances and threats were undoubtedly acts unbecoming of a lawyer. Although the unnecessary remarks and threats were allegedly a result of respondent's emotional outbursts, as stated in complainant's Affidavit of Desistance, the same is not sufficient excuse for respondent's inappropriate behavior. x x x 15
Administrative actions are not made to depend on the will of every complainant who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act. 16 Thus, while the parties in this case may have fully settled their differences, this fact will not stop the Court from imposing administrative sanctions, if warranted.
In this case, Atty. Salvado is charged with violations of Canons 17 and 18 (18.03 & 18.04) of the CPR, viz.:
Canon 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Canon 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within reasonable time to the client's request for information.
These canons impose an exacting standard and require lawyers to serve their clients with competence, fidelity, and diligence.
After careful examination of the records, We affirm the findings of the IBP Board of Governors. Atty. Salvado failed to serve his clients with the competence, fidelity, and diligence required of him. 17 However, We reduce the penalty for the reasons to be discussed below.
There is no doubt that Atty. Salvado undertook to handle, as legal counsel, the transfer and registration of TCT No. N-4811 in complainants' names. The terms of engagement he signed are clear:
Scope of Legal Services
As your legal counsel, we shall render service only insofar as the transfer and registration with the Registry of deeds of Marikina City of TCT No. N-4811 in [complainants'] names is concerned. It is hereby understood and agreed upon that the owners' duplicate copy of the certificate of title under your names shall be delivered to you within one (1) month from the execution of this contract, failing which, the fees stipulated hereunder shall be returned in full immediately without need of any demand. 18
The Court, in construing Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, has consistently ruled that mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation. 19 Here, it is not disputed that Atty. Salvado failed to deliver a new TCT in the name of complainants within the time agreed upon.
The records are also clear that Atty. Salvado received a sizable amount from complainants in exchange for his services. 20 In Emiliano Court Townhouses v. Atty. Dioneda, 21 this Court held that the act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services and subsequently failing to render such service is a clear violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR.
That complainants reposed such high degree of trust and confidence in Atty. Salvado is undeniably clear. Upon engaging his services, 22 they immediately entrusted him with the full amount of Php600,000.00 23 as payment for his fees and other costs relative to the transfer of the title in their names. His receipt of the monetary consideration and undertaking to deliver the new title within a month should have made it more imperative for Atty. Salvado to promptly take action. At the very least, he could have commenced the process for the issuance of the new title in his clients' names. As complainants eventually discovered, he even failed to do this.
Atty. Salvado also failed to regularly update complainants, leaving them in the dark on the status of the transfer of their title. Complainants thus had no choice but to find other ways to inform themselves on the matter.
Furthermore, it appears that Atty. Salvado gave complainants a hard time getting their money back. Several attempts to meet with him at his office proved futile as said office was kept closed. All calls were also ignored until complainants were finally able to confront him at his residence two (2) months after he was supposed to deliver a TCT in their names. Worse, when asked to return the money paid to him, Atty. Salvado issued a check that was subsequently dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. 24
In cases involving violations of Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR, the Court has imposed penalties ranging from reprimand 25 to suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months 26 or one (1) year, 27 with a stern warning against future commission of the same or similar acts.
The Court, in the cases of Orbe v. Adaza, 28Lim v. Rivera29 and Enriquez v. De Vera, 30 imposed the penalty of one (1)-year suspension from the practice of law for deliberate failure to pay just debts and for the issuance of worthless checks. In Sanchez v. Torres, 31 a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years was deemed appropriate in light of the large amount involved, which was Php2,200,000.00. The same penalty was also imposed in Heenan v. Espejo, 32A-1 Financial Services v. Valerio, 33Dizon v. Taza, 34 and Wong v. Moya II, 35 when the lawyer's issuance of worthless checks were coupled with other violations of the CPR.
Ultimately, the appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts. Moreover, We also consider the fact that this is not Atty. Salvado's first infraction. As correctly noted by Commissioner Buted, 36 Atty. Salvado was previously suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years for making misrepresentations to his clients and issuing worthless checks. 37
Using all the foregoing as Our guide, and considering further that Atty. Salvado has fully returned the amount paid to him by complainants, 38 this Court deems a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years to be sufficient in this case.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, respondent Atty. Ronaldo P. Salvado is hereby found GUILTY of violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall now give cause for his disbarment.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon Atty. Ronaldo P. Salvado's receipt of a copy of this Resolution. He is directed to inform this Court and the Office of the Bar Confidant, in writing, of the date he received a copy of this Resolution within five (5) days thereof.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to his personal record, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Office of the Court Administrator is directed to circulate copies of this Resolution to all courts concerned. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-4.
2.Id. at 22-23.
3.Id. at 16.
4.Id. at 20.
5.Id. at 40.
6.Id. at 41.
7.Id. at 124-129.
8.Id. at 125.
9.Id. at 122-123.
10.Id. at 112; Complainant Lucinda Ereñeta died on 13 July 2017.
11.Id. at 82-84.
12.Id. at 127-129.
13.Id. at 113-115.
14.See Malute v. Selmo (Resolution), A.C. No. 12882, 02 December 2020; see also Escalona v. Padillo, 645 Phil. 263, 267 (2010); A.M. No. P-10-2785, 21 September 2010 [Per curiam].
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.See Morales v. Borres, A.C. No. 12476, 10 June 2019 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier].
18.Rollo, p. 26.
19.Solidon v. Macalalad, 627 Phil. 284, 289 (2010); A.C. No. 8158, 24 February 2010 [Per J. Brion].
20.Rollo, p. 29.
21. 447 Phil. 408, 413 (2003); A.C. No. 5162, March 20, 2003 [Per J. Bellosillo).
22.Rollo, pp. 10-12.
23.Id. at 29.
24.Id. at 30.
25.See Del Mar v. Amit, A.C. No. 12626, 26 February 2020.
26.See Garay v. Mortera, A.C. No. 12667, 17 February 2020.
27.Cabuello v. Talaboc, 820 Phil. 370, 389 (2017); A.C. No. 10532, 07 November 2017 [Per CJ Peralta]; Cabiles v. Cedo, 816 Phil. 840, 850 (2017); A.C. No. 10245, 16 August 2017 [Per J. Del Castillo]; Chang v. Hidalgo, 784 Phil. 1, 13 (2016); A.C. No. 6934, 06 April 2016 [Per J. Leonen].
28. 472 Phil. 629 (2004); A.C. No. 5252, 20 May 2004 [Per J. Vitug].
29. 833 Phil. 609 (2018); A.C. No. 12156, 20 June 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
30. 756 Phil. 1 (2015); A.C. No. 8330, 16 March 2015 [Per J. Leonen].
31. 748 Phil. 18 (2014); A.C. No. 10240, 25 November 2014 [Per curiam].
32. 722 Phil. 528 (2013); A.C. No. 10050, 03 December 2013 [Per J. Velasco, Jr.].
33. 636 Phil. 627 (2010); A.C. No. 8390, 02 July 2010 [Per J. Peralta].
34. 736 Phil. 60 (2014); A.C. No. 7676, 10 June 2014 [Per J. Reyes].
35. 590 Phil. 279 (2008); A.C. No. 6972, 17 October 2008 [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro].
36.Rollo, pp. 128-129.
37.See Aca v. Salvado, 779 Phil. 214, 223 (2016); A.C. No. 10952, 26 January 2016 [Per curiam].
38.See Barrientos v. Libiran-Meteoro, 480 Phil. 661, 669-670 (2004); A.C. No. 6408, 31 August 2004 [Per J. Austria-Martinez].