SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 7825. January 15, 2014.]
HERTIYATA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., represented by REYNALDO C. CELSO, petitioner, vs. ATTY. FERNANDO V. DOMINGO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 January 2014 which reads as follows:
A.C. No. 7825: HERTIYATA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., represented by REYNALDO C. CELSO v. ATTY. FERNANDO V. DOMINGO
This is a disbarment complaint filed by the Hertiyata Neighborhood Association, Inc. (complainant) against respondent Atty. Fernando V. Domingo (respondent). Complainant is represented by its President, Reynaldo C. Celso (Celso).
Respondent was counsel for the complainant in G.R. No. 178073 entitled Julia Morales, et al. v. Severa Clemente De Dios, et al., pending before this Court. In connection with this engagement, respondent's secretary, Marichu Perez, received the following amounts from complainant:
| (a) | Acceptance fee: | P30,000.00 |
| (b) | Location plan fee: | P10,000.00 |
| (c ) | Filing fee: | P15,000.00 |
| ––––––––– | ||
| Total: | P55,000.00 1 |
Respondent replaced complainant's former counsel, Atty. Cornejo De Jesus. The Motion to Change Counsel was duly noted by this Court in its Resolution dated 30 January 2008. 2
Respondent requested a certain Atty. Agaton Villalon (Atty. Villalon) to file a Motion to Inhibit before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, of Manila, 3 without consulting the complainant. A copy of the motion was not included as part of the records of this case. The complainant only learned of the filing on 15 February 2008, during the hearing for the Motion of Execution of Judgment filed by the opposing party. 4CSaITD
On 1 March 2008, complainant invited respondent to a meeting so that he could explain to complainant the plan or course of action for the case. 5 Respondent did not meet with complainant. Thus, complainant sent a letter dated 9 March 2008 terminating the services of respondent and seeking reimbursement of the fees paid to him. 6
Since respondent failed to reply to the written and verbal requests of complainant, 7 complainant filed a complaint for disbarment on 27 March 2008. The complaint alleged that:
Despite receipt of . . . letters of invitation, respondent failed to appear, and still refuses to meet with the complainant to enlighten and/or apprise the members of the status of the new case to be filed by him. Respondent's actuations are [a] clear indication that he had defrauded the complainant of the funds entrusted to him for the purpose of filing of a new case including the location plan which respondent insisted to be prepared. . . . .
Moreover, respondent had duped and deceived the complainant when the latter . . . authorized and/or designated a certain special counsel who posed as a certain Atty. Agaton J. Villalon, to prepare and file a Motion to Inhibit, [knowing] that [he] was not a member of the Philippine Bar, [which caused] prejudice and serious damage to the complainant. 8
The complaint also stated that respondent failed to attend hearings on two occasions. Thus, following the ruling in Richards v. Asoy, 9respondent should be disbarred. Furthermore, complainant argued that, citing Quilban v. Robinol, 10respondent was also guilty of grave misconduct since he improperly retained money belonging to his client and earmarked for a specific purpose. 11 Respondent filed his Comment with Counter-Charge (Comment) on 13 August 2008. 12 In his Comment, respondent claimed that he had advised other members of the neighborhood association as to the intended course of action in G.R. No. 178073. He also claimed that he could not accept complainant's invitation because he was undergoing medical treatment at the Philippine Heart Center. 13 Respondent further claimed that complainant's new counsel, Atty. Dinah Jean Cornejo, was guilty of grave misconduct because she and Celso "surreptitiously filed an action for disbarment against respondent without [c]onsulting the members of the [a]ssociation." 14
On 15 September 2008, this Court resolved "to [refer] this case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines [IBP] for investigation, report and recommendation or decision within ninety (90) days from receipt of records thereof." 15 Thereafter, complainant filed its reply, which was referred by this Court to the IBP on 12 November 2008. 16
In its Position Paper dated 28 March 2009, complainant alleged that Atty. Villalon, who filed the Motion to Inhibit at the request of respondent, was not a member of the Philippine Bar. This was confirmed by the Office of the Bar Confidant in its Certification dated 5 May 2008. 17ESTcIA
On 19 May 2009, respondent filed his Position Paper which reiterated the defenses stated in his earlier Comment. 18
On 22 May 2009, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the: (a) suspension of respondent for six (6) months from the active practice of law; and (b) dismissal of respondent's Counter-Charge for lack of merit. 19
Respondent, however, passed away on 12 June 2009. 20
There were no developments for almost three years after the issuance of the report of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. Thus, on 21 March 2012, this Court issued a Resolution requiring the IBP to submit a status report on this case within thirty (30) days from notice. 21
On 29 December 2012, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XX-2012-626, which stated:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering [r]espondent's violation of Rule 9.01, Rule 12.03 and Rule 16.01, Rule 16.03, Rule 18.03 and Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Fernando V. Domingo is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months and [o]rdered to Return to [c]omplainant the amount of Fifty[-]Five Thousand (P55,000.00) Pesos with legal interest within thirty days from receipt of notice. 22
The IBP forwarded the instant case to this Court as provided under Section 12 (b), Rule 139-B 23 of the Rules of Court.
This Court rules that the complaint must be dismissed in view of the death of respondent. The death of the respondent has rendered this case moot, following our ruling in Olivares and/or Olivares Realty Corporation v. Villalon, Jr. 24and Marcoleta v. Borra. 25
WHEREFORE, the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED for being moot.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 6.
2. Id. at 7.
3. Id. at 102.
4. Id. at 3.
5. Id. at 9.
6. Id. at 10.
7. Id. at 3-4.
8. Id. at 77.
9. 224 Phil. 76 (1985).
10. 253 Phil. 751 (1989).
11. Rollo, p. 78.
12. Id. at 29-38.
13. Id. at 31.
14. Id. at 32.
15. Id. at 47.
16. Id. at 60.
17. Id. at 90.
18. Id. at 95-108. The Report of the IBP, however, erroneously stated that respondent failed to file a Position Paper. See rollo p. 148.
19. Id. at 149.
20. Id. at 133.
21. Id. at 125.
22. Id. at 143.
23. Review and Decision by the Board of Governors. — (a) . . . .
(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.
24. 549 Phil. 528 (2007).
25. A.C. No. 7732, 30 March 2009, 582 SCRA 474.