EN BANC
[A.C. No. 11145. July 26, 2016.]
CATALINO Q. QUINCELA, JR., petitioner, vs. ATTY. LEOVIGILDO H. MIJARES III, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JULY 26, 2016, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11145 (Catalino Q. Quincela, Jr. vs. Atty. Leovigildo H. Mijares III). — Pending before the Court is a disbarment complaint filed by Catalino Q. Quincela, Jr. against respondent Atty. Leovigildo H. Mijares III, charging him with malpractice and violation of the Lawyer's Oath.
The Complaint alleged that complainant Catalino Q. Quincela, Jr. acquired two parcels of land from a certain Anabell P. Wico (Wico). These properties were originally awarded to Spouses Antonio C. Dizon and Rosario E. Dizon (Dizon Spouses). However, the spouses thereafter assigned their rights to Ma. Nida Solamillo, who also sold/assigned her right to Wico.
In or about April 2013, considering that the award and title to the properties remain with the original awardees, the Dizon Spouses, respondent offered and made representations to complainant to accomplish the processing and transfer of the titles to complainant's name. As a consequence of said offer, complainant engaged the services of respondent for the processing of the award of the properties and their eventual registration of the titles to complainant's name.
In consideration of the engagement, complainant made a partial payment to respondent in the amount of Two Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,200,000). This payment was evidenced by an acknowledgment receipt dated April 4, 2013, which was duly signed by respondent as counsel.
Thereafter, respondent sent a communication dated April 8, 2013 to the National Housing Authority (NHA), as complainant's counsel, regarding the approval of the transfer of ownership of the properties. The NHA replied by way of a letter dated April 23, 2013.
After several months of waiting, complainant no longer received any update on the status of the transfer of the titles from respondent. To make matters worse, respondent stopped communicating with complainant, and efforts to reach respondent through his mobile phone and office landlines proved futile.
This prompted complainant to verify the status of the property directly with the NHA, only to be informed that no follow-up has been done by respondent as his engaged counsel. It appears that after receiving the partial professional fee of P2.2 million, respondent merely sent one communication letter to the NHA and thereafter vanished. Respondent has neither communicated nor returned the professional fees already paid to him by complainant, notwithstanding his failure to pursue the work.
To give respondent the opportunity to make restitution, complainant, through counsel, sent a demand letter dated March 24, 2014, seeking for the return to complainant of the partial professional fees in the amount of P2.2 million. Despite receipt of this demand letter through a certain Fred Penafiel, as well as reasonable time given to him, respondent failed to reply to the demand letter, make restitution, or even to exert any effort to communicate with complainant.
Aggrieved, complainant resorted to the filing of the present administrative complaint against respondent, praying that the latter be disbarred from the practice of law and for such other appropriate disciplinary action.
Acting on the complaint, the Director for Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) issued an Order dated May 2, 2014 requiring respondent to submit his answer to the complaint. However, respondent failed to submit any answer, or to even attend the mandatory conference scheduled on August 28, 2014, which only counsel for complainant attended. Upon termination of the mandatory conference, the parties were required to submit their respective position papers, but only complainant submitted his position paper.
In its Report and Recommendation 1 dated January 28, 2015, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP (IBP-CBD) recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and ordered to make restitution of P2,200,000 with interest at 12% per annum. AIDSTE
In a Resolution 2 dated February 21, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD, to wit:
RESOLUTION NO. XXI-2015-202
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, 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 to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, and finding Respondent guilty of malpractice and gross neglect of duty for his failure to update Complainant of the status of his case aggravated by his clear defiance to and non-compliance of the processes of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Leovigildo H. Mijares III is hereby DISBARRED and Ordered to Return the amount of Two Million Two Hundred Thousand (P2,200,000.00) Pesos to Complainant.
Based on the records, no petition for review was filed by either party.
Considering the strong and convincing evidence presented by complainant, the IBP was correct in recommending the disbarment of respondent. However, We need to modify the rate of interest pursuant to BSP Circular No. 799, Series of 2013, which provides that the rate of interest allowed in judgments shall be six percent (6%) per annum effective July 1, 2013. Accordingly, the interest rate of 12% shall be applied from April 4, 2013, the date of respondent's receipt of said amount from complainant, to June 30, 2013; and the 6% interest rate shall be effective from July 1, 2013 until full payment.
The case is similar to Torben B. Overgaard v. Atty. Godwin R. Valdez, 3 where respondent was disbarred for deserting his client after collecting the full amount of legal fees of P900,000, without attending to any of the cases for which he was engaged. This Court ruled that respondent committed manifestly deceitful and dishonest acts, which violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 15, and Rule 16.01 of Canon 16.
In the present case, the IBP correctly found that respondent violated Rule 18.03 of the CPR for malpractice and gross negligence, for his failure to update complainant of the status of his legal engagement, and for failing to return the amount of money which he received from complainant.
Respondent's defiance to comply with the processes of the IBP-CBD for his refusal to submit his answer and position paper or to appear in the mandatory conferences adds to respondent's misgivings.
While, however, there is sufficient ground to grant the complaint, We are constrained to dismiss the same.
Upon verification by this Court, it appears that respondent had already been disbarred from the practice of law as early as November 20, 2009, pursuant to this Court's Decision in A.C. No. 8380. The dispositive portion of said Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Leovigildo H. Mijares III, a member of the Bar, GUILTY of violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 15, Rule 15.05, Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03, and Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and imposes on him the penalty of DISBARMENT. He is, in addition, directed to return to complainant Arellano University, Inc. all the documents in his possession covering the titling matter that it referred to him.
Let the sworn statement of respondent Mijares, forming his Answer, be forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman for whatever action it deems proper under the circumstances.
SO ORDERED.
Not surprisingly, it appears that the facts surrounding respondent's disbarment in A.C. No. 8380 are similar to the present case, since in the first disbarment case, respondent's services were engaged by complainant therein for the titling of its property, and upon receipt of his attorney's fees, respondent thereafter reneged on his duties to his client.
Considering that respondent is no longer a member of the Bar and no motion or petition for his reinstatement thereto has been filed, respondent's disbarment is no longer feasible.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Leovigildo H. Mijares III GUILTY of violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and imposes on him the penalty of DISBARMENT. However, in light of the Decision in A.C. No. 8380, the penalty of disbarment may no longer be implemented. Nevertheless, respondent is hereby directed to RESTITUTE complainant Catalino Q. Quincela, Jr. the amount of Two Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,200,000) plus 12% interest per annum counting from April 4, 2013, which is the date of respondent's receipt of said amount from complainant, until June 30, 2013; and 6% interest per annum counting from July 1, 2013 until full payment. Respondent is ordered to pay complainant within sixty (60) days from receipt of this Resolution. Otherwise, respondent may be held liable for contempt.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country, for their guidance and information.
This Resolution shall be immediately executory." (adv9) AaCTcI
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 82-84.
2. Id. at 80-81.
3. A.C. No. 7902, September 30, 2008.