A.C. No. 9074.August 14, 2012.

*
GRACE M. ANACTA,** complainant, vs. ATTY. EDUARDO D. RESURRECCION, respondent.
Attorneys; Admission to the Bar; One of the qualifications required of a candidate for admission to the
bar is the possession of good moral character.As early as In Re: Sotto, 38 Phil. 532, 548-549 (1918),
this Court held that: One of the qualifications required of a candidate for admission to the bar is the
possession of good moral character, and, when one who has already been admitted to the bar clearly
shows, by a series of acts, that he does not follow such moral principles as should govern the conduct of
an upright person, and that, in his dealings with his clients and with the courts, he disre_______________
* EN BANC.
** Also known as Grace Mino y Anacta.
353
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012
353
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
gards the rule of professional ethics required to be observed by every attorney, it is the duty of the
court, as guardian of the interests of society, as well as of the preservation of the ideal standard of
professional conduct, to make use of its powers to deprive him of his professional attributes which he so
unworthily abused.
Same; Code of Professional Responsibility; Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states
that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility states that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal
processes but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and the
moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.
Same; Disbarment; The Court is not mandated to automatically impose the extreme penalty of
disbarment. It is allowed by law to exercise its discretion either to disbar or just suspend the erring
lawyer based on its appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case.In any of the following
circumstances, to wit: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyers oath; (7) wilful disobedience
of any lawful order of a superior court; or (8) corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority to do so; the Court is vested with the authority and discretion to impose either
the extreme penalty of disbarment or mere suspension. Certainly, the Court is not placed in a
straitjacket as regards the penalty to be imposed. There is no ironclad rule that disbarment must
immediately follow upon a finding of deceit or gross misconduct. The Court is not mandated to
automatically impose the extreme penalty of disbarment. It is allowed by law to exercise its discretion
either to disbar or just suspend the erring lawyer based on its appreciation of the facts and
circumstances of the case.
Same; Gross Misconduct; Failure to return the monies received from complainant despite repeated
demands constitute gross misconduct.In Garcia v. Atty. Manuel, 395 SCRA 386 (2003), the Court found
respondent therein to have committed dishonesty and abused the confidence of his client for failing to
file the ejectment suit de354
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
spite asking for and receiving from the complainant the money intended as filing fees. In his bid for
exoneration, therein respondent attempted to mislead the Court by claiming that he has not yet
received the registry return card of the notice to vacate hence his failure to file the ejectment suit.
However, the records indubitably showed that he had already received the same. Moreover, therein
respondent likewise refused to return the monies he received from the complainant despite repeated
demands. The Court thus concluded that therein respondent's actions constitute gross misconduct.

Nevertheless, based on its appreciation of the evidence, the Court refrained from imposing the penalty
of disbarment. Instead, it imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six
months.
Same; Disbarment; Disbarment, jurisprudence teaches, should not be decreed where any punishment
less severe, such as reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end desired.The Court is not
bound to impose the penalty of disbarment in cases of gross misconduct and/or dishonesty, if in its
appreciation of facts and in the exercise of its sound discretion, the penalty of suspension would be
more commensurate. Disbarment, jurisprudence teaches, should not be decreed where any punishment
less severe, such as reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end desired. This is as it
should be considering the consequence of disbarment on the economic life and honor of the erring
person. In this case, we believe that the penalty of suspension of four years will provide Atty.
Resurreccion with enough time to ponder on and cleanse himself of his misconduct. While we will not
hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence
calls for it, we will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.
We note that there is no mention in the records of any previous or similar administrative case filed
against herein respondent.
Same; Same; It is imperative to first determine whether the matter falls within the disciplinary authority
of the Court or whether the matter is a proper subject of judicial action against lawyers. If the matter
involves violations of the lawyers oath and code of conduct, then it falls within the Courts disciplinary
authority.It is imperative to first determine whether the matter falls within the disciplinary authority of
the Court or whether the matter is a proper subject
355
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012
355
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
of judicial action against lawyers. If the matter involves violations of the lawyers oath and code of
conduct, then it falls within the Courts disciplinary authority. However, if the matter arose from acts
which carry civil or criminal liability, and which do not directly require an inquiry into the moral fitness of
the lawyer, then the matter would be a proper subject of a judicial action which is understandably
outside the purview of the Courts disciplinary authority. Thus, we hold that when the matter subject of
the inquiry pertains to the mental and moral fitness of the respondent to remain as member of the legal
fraternity, the issue of whether the respondent be directed to return the amount received from his client
shall be deemed within the Courts disciplinary authority.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Rex G. Rico and Jose Voltaire A. Bautista for complainant.
DEL CASTILLO,J.:
[T]he purpose of disbarment is to protect the courts and the public from the misconduct of the officers
of the court and to ensure the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this
important function shall be competent, honorable and trustworthy men in whom courts and clients may
repose confidence.1
In a Complaint2 for disbarment filed on August 22, 2007 with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), complainant Grace M. Anacta (complainant) prays for the
disbarment of respondent Atty. Edu_______________
1 Diaz v. Atty. Gerong, 225 Phil. 44, 48; 141 SCRA 46, 49 (1986).
2 Rollo, pp. 1-6.
356
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Anacta vs. Resurreccion

ardo D. Resurreccion (respondent) for gross misconduct, deceit and malpractice.3
Records show that on November 15, 2004, complainant engaged the services of respondent to file on
her behalf a petition for annulment of marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, for
which she paid respondent P42,000.00.4
In December 2004, respondent presented to the complainant a supposed copy of a Petition for
Annulment of Marriage5 which bore the stamped receipt dated December 8, 2004 of the RTC, as well as
its docket number, Civil Case No. 04-25141.
From then on, complainant did not hear from respondent or receive any notice from the trial court
relative to the said petition. This prompted her to make inquiries with the Office of the Clerk of Court of
the RTC of Quezon City (OCC-RTC). To her surprise and dismay, she discovered that no petition for
annulment docketed as Civil Case No. 04-25141 was ever filed before the said court.6 Thus, complainant
terminated the services of respondent for loss of trust and confidence7 and requested the OCC-RTC to
refuse any belated attempt on the part of respondent to file a petition for annulment of marriage on her
behalf.8
On July 30, 2007, complainant, through her new counsel, wrote a letter9 to the respondent demanding
for an explanation as to how respondent intended to indemnify the complainant for damages she had
suffered due to respondents deceitful acts. Respondent has not replied thereto. Hence,
_______________

3 Id., at p. 4.
4 See Service of Agreement dated November 15, 2004, id., at
p. 45.
5 Id., at pp. 9-12.
6 See Certification dated March 7, 2005, id., at p. 16.
7 See Letter dated March 6, 2005, id., at p. 15.
8 See Letter dated March 9, 2005, id., at p. 17.
9 Id., at p. 18.
357
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012
357
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
complainant filed before the IBP a verified complaint praying that respondent be disbarred.
In an Order10 dated August 22, 2007, the Director for Bar Discipline of the IBP, Atty. Alicia A. Risos-Vidal,
required the respondent to submit his answer to the complaint within 15 days from notice. However,
respondent did not heed said directive. Hence, complainant filed Motions to Declare Respondent in
Default and Hear the Case Ex-Parte.11 The Investigating Commissioner, Romualdo A. Din, Jr., held in
abeyance the resolution of the above motions and instead set the complaint for Mandatory Conference
on October 6, 2008.12 On the said date, however, only the complainant and her counsel appeared.
Accordingly, in an Order13 dated October 6, 2008, the Investigating Commissioner deemed respondent
to have waived the filing of an answer; noted complainants motion to declare respondent in default; and
gave the complainant 10 days from notice within which to file her verified position paper, after which the
case shall be deemed submitted for resolution.
Complainant filed her verified Position Paper14 on October 15, 2008.
In his Report and Recommendation15 dated December 8, 2008, the Investigating Commissioner found
clear and convincing evidence that respondent is guilty of deceit and dishonesty when he
misrepresented having filed the petition for annulment of marriage after receipt of P42,000.00 when in
fact no such petition was filed. He thus recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for a period

_______________
10 Id., at p. 19.
11 Id., at pp. 20-21.
12 See Notice of Mandatory Conference, id., at p. 33.
13 Id., at p. 35.
14 Id., at pp. 36-44.
15 Id., at pp. 60-63.
358
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
of two years and to reimburse/return to the complainant the amount of P42,000.00.
In a Resolution16 dated August 28, 2010, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the findings
of the Investigating Commissioner but modified the recommended penalty of suspension from the
practice of law from two years to four years and ordered respondent to return to the complainant the
amount of P42,000.00, otherwise his suspension will continue until he returns the sum involved.
Our Ruling
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
In Narag v. Atty. Narag17 this Court held that [t]he burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the
Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if she establishes her case by clear, convincing and
satisfactory evidence.
In this case, complainant submitted the following documents to prove her allegations: (1) the Service
Agreement dated November 15, 2004 to prove the existence of attorney-client relationship between the
parties; (2) the Petition for Annulment of Marriage18 supposedly filed by respondent on December 8,
2004 with the RTC of Quezon City and docketed as Civil Case No. 04-25141; (3) the Certification issued
by the Assistant Clerk of Court of the RTC of Quezon City showing that no Petition for Annulment of
Marriage with Civil Case No. Q-0425141 was filed on December 8, 2004; (4) the letter dated March 6,
2005 of the complainant to the respondent informing the latter that she is terminating his legal services
effective immediately; (5) the letter of complainant to the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Quezon City
wherein she re_______________
16 As quoted in the Notice of Resolution, id., at p. 59.
17 353 Phil. 643, 655-656; 291 SCRA 451, 464 (1998).
18 Supra note 5.
359
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012
359
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
quested that any belated attempt by my former lawyer Atty. Resurreccion to file any Petition for
Annulment x x x be refused acceptance; and, (6) the letter dated July 30, 2007 of complainants new
counsel demanding for an explanation as to how respondent intended to indemnify the complainant for
damages she had suffered by reason of respondents fraudulent misrepresentations.19
In the face of such a serious charge, the respondent has chosen to remain silent.

Thus, we find the confluence of the evidence submitted by the complainant to have clearly, convincingly
and satisfactorily shown that indeed the respondent has authored this reprehensible act. Respondent
committed deceitful and dishonest acts by misrepresenting that he had already filed a petition for
annulment on behalf of the complainant and pocketing the amount of P42,000.00. He even went to the
extent of presenting to the complainant a supposed copy of the petition duly filed with the court. After
he was found out, he made himself scarce. He ignored all communications sent to him by the
complainant. After the disbarment complaint was filed, he failed to file his answer despite due notice. He
totally disregarded the proceedings before the IBP despite receipt of summons. The act of respondent
in not filing his answer and ignoring the hearings set by the Investigating Commission, despite due
notice, emphasized his contempt for legal proceedings.20
We thus agree with the observation of the IBP Investigating Commissioner that [s]uch action of the
respondent is patently deceitful and dishonest, considering further that he received an amount of money
from the complainant.21 The natural instinct of man impels him to resist an unfounded
_______________
19 Supra note 9.
20 Berbano v. Atty. Barcelona, 457 Phil. 331, 342; 410 SCRA 258, 265 (2003).
21 Rollo, p. 68.
360
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
claim or imputation and defend himself. It is totally against our human nature to just remain reticent and
say nothing in the face of false accusations. Hence, silence in such cases is almost always construed as
implied admission of the truth thereof.22
As early as In Re: Sotto,23 this Court held that:
One of the qualifications required of a candidate for admission to the bar is the possession of good moral
character, and, when one who has already been admitted to the bar clearly shows, by a series of acts,
that he does not follow such moral principles as should govern the conduct of an upright person, and
that, in his dealings with his clients and with the courts, he disregards the rule of professional ethics
required to be observed by every attorney, it is the duty of the court, as guardian of the interests of
society, as well as of the preservation of the ideal standard of professional conduct, to make use of its
powers to deprive him of his professional attributes which he so unworthily abused.
In addition, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that [a] lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm
respect for law, legal processes but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in
dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.24
Pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, respondent may either be disbarred or
suspended for committing deceitful and dishonest acts. Thus:
_______________
22 Noel-Bertulfo v. Nuez, A.M. No. P-10-2758, February 2, 2010, 611 SCRA 270, 280 citing Grefaldeo v.
Judge Lacson, 355 Phil. 266, 271; 293 SCRA 524, 528 (1998).
23 38 Phil. 532, 548-549 (1918).
24 Berbano v. Atty. Barcelona, supra note 20 at pp. 342-343; p. 266.
361
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012
361
Anacta vs. Resurreccion

SEC.27.Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor.A member of

the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or
for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice. [Emphasis supplied.]
It is thus clear from the foregoing provision that in any of the following circumstances, to wit: (1) deceit;
(2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyers oath; (7) wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court; or (8) corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority
to do so; the Court is vested with the authority and discretion to impose either the extreme penalty of
disbarment or mere suspension. Certainly, the Court is not placed in a straitjacket as regards the penalty
to be imposed. There is no ironclad rule that disbarment must immediately follow upon a finding of
deceit or gross misconduct. The Court is not mandated to automatically impose the extreme penalty of
disbarment. It is allowed by law to exercise its discretion either to disbar or just suspend the erring
lawyer based on its appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case.
We examined the records of the case and assessed the evidence presented by the complainant. After
such examination and assessment, we are convinced beyond doubt that respondent should only be
meted the penalty of four-year suspension as properly recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. In
the exercise of our discretion, we are unquestionably certain that the four-year suspension suffices and
commensurable to the infractions he committed. As will be pointed out later,
362
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
there have been cases with more or less the same factual setting as in the instant case where the Court
also imposed the penalty of suspension and not disbarment.
We have gone over jurisprudential rulings where the respondents were found guilty of grave misconduct
and/or dishonesty and we observe that the Court either disbars or suspends them based on its collective
appreciation of attendant circumstances and in the exercise of its sound discretion.
In Garcia v. Atty. Manuel,25 the Court found respondent therein to have committed dishonesty and
abused the confidence26 of his client for failing to file the ejectment suit despite asking for and receiving
from the complainant the money intended as filing fees. In his bid for exoneration, therein respondent
attempted to mislead the Court by claiming that he has not yet received the registry return card of the
notice to vacate hence his failure to file the ejectment suit. However, the records indubitably showed
that he had already received the same. Moreover, therein respondent likewise refused to return the
monies he received from the complainant despite repeated demands.27 The Court thus concluded that
therein respondents actions constitute gross misconduct. Nevertheless, based on its appreciation of the
evidence, the Court refrained from imposing the penalty of disbarment. Instead, it imposed the penalty
of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months, ratiocinating thus:
Complainant asks that respondent be disbarred. However, we find that suspension from the practice of
law is sufficient to discipline respondent. The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear
cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
court and member of the bar. While we will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed
brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it,
_______________
25 443 Phil. 479; 395 SCRA 386 (2003).
26 Id., at p. 486; p. 389.
27 Id., at p. 487; p. 388.
363
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012

363
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
we will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end. In this case,
we find suspension to be sufficient sanction against respondent. Suspension, we may add, is not
primarily intended as punishment, but as a means to protect the public and the legal profession.28
In Ceniza v. Rubia,29 respondent therein was alleged to have misrepresented having already filed in
court the necessary complaint by showing the copy of the complaint stamped received with a docket
number thereon.30 However, upon verification with the appropriate court, it was discovered that none
was filed.31 It was also noted that respondent therein prompted the complainant to borrow money from
a third party just to be able to pay her attorneys fees. When the case reached this Court, it imposed the
penalty of suspension and not disbarment. In so doing, the Court lent more credence to the explanation
of the respondent that the case was withdrawn after it had been stamped received by the court.
In Roa v. Moreno,32 the Court found respondent therein guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty. He
issued a bogus Certificate of Land Occupancy to the complainant33 and refused to return the amount
paid by the complainant.34 For said infractions, the Court meted him with the penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for two years.35
In Barcenas v. Alvero,36 respondent failed to deposit in court the amount of P300,000.00 which he
received from his client supposedly as redemption price. He also failed to return
_______________
28 Id., at p. 489; p. 392.
29 A.C. No. 6166, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 1.
30 Id., at p. 9.
31 Id., at pp. 4 and 9.
32 A.C. No. 8382, April 21, 2010, 618 SCRA 693.
33 Id., at p. 698.
34 Id., at p. 699.
35 Id., at p. 700.
36 A.C. No. 8159, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 1, 10.
364
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
the amount despite repeated demands. He was suspended for two years.
In Small v. Banares37 respondent received P80,000.00 from complainant for his legal services and as
filing fees. He however failed to file the necessary complaint and was never heard from again. He was
thus suspended from the practice of law for two years.
In Judge Angeles v. Atty. Uy, Jr.,38 therein respondent failed to promptly report that he received money
on behalf of his client. However, for lack of evidence of misappropriation, he was only suspended and
not disbarred.
In Gonato v. Atty. Adaza,39 Atty. Adaza asked money from his client supposedly as filing fees when in
fact no such filing fees are needed or due. Worse, he issued a falsified official receipt as proof of
payment. Finally, when he was discovered, he failed to heed his clients demand to return the amount.
For such infractions, Atty. Adaza was suspended for a period of six months.
In Aquino v. Atty. Barcelona,40 Atty. Barcelona deliberately misrepresented to his client that he was able
to successfully facilitate the restructuring of his clients loan with a bank through his connection. On
the basis of said false pretenses, he collected P60,000.00 from his client. His client eventually became

aware of such misrepresentations when his property was foreclosed by the bank. Atty. Barcelona was
thus charged with misconduct and for which he was suspended by the Court for a period of six months.
The foregoing cases illustrate that the Court is not bound to impose the penalty of disbarment in cases
of gross misconduct and/or dishonesty, if in its appreciation of facts and in
_______________
37 A.C. No. 7021, February 21, 2007, 516 SCRA 323.
38 386 Phil. 221; 330 SCRA 6 (2000).
39 385 Phil. 426; 328 SCRA 694 (2000).
40 431 Phil. 59; 381 SCRA 355 (2002)
365
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012
365
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
the exercise of its sound discretion, the penalty of suspension would be more commensurate.41
Disbarment, jurisprudence teaches, should not be decreed where any punishment less severe, such as
reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end desired. This is as it should be considering the
consequence of disbarment on the economic life and honor of the erring person.42 In this case, we
believe that the penalty of suspension of four years will provide Atty. Resurreccion with enough time to
ponder on and cleanse himself of his misconduct.43 While we will not hesitate to remove an erring
attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it, we will also not
disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.44 We note that there is no
mention in the records of any previous or similar administrative case filed against herein respondent.
Anent the issue of whether respondent should be directed to return the amount of P42,000.00 he
received from the complainant, we note that the rulings of this Court in this matter have been diverse.
On one hand, there are cases where this Court directed respondents to return the money they received
from the complainants. On the other hand, there are also cases where this Court refrained from
venturing into this matter on the ground that the same is not within the ambit of its disciplinary
authority as the only issue in administrative cases is the fitness of the lawyer to remain a member of the
bar.
Now is the most opportune time to harmonize the Courts ruling on this matter. Thus, it is imperative to
first determine whether the matter falls within the disciplinary authority of
_______________
41 See Ducat, Jr. v. Atty. Villalon, Jr., 392 Phil. 394, 404-405; 337 SCRA 622, 628 (2000).
42 Salomon, Jr. v. Frial, A.C. No. 7820, September 12, 2008, 565 SCRA 9, 15-16.
43 Id.
44 Wilkie v. Limos, A.C. No. 7505, October 24, 2008, 570 SCRA 1, 10.
366
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
the Court or whether the matter is a proper subject of judicial action against lawyers. If the matter
involves violations of the lawyers oath and code of conduct, then it falls within the Courts disciplinary
authority. However, if the matter arose from acts which carry civil or criminal liability, and which do not
directly require an inquiry into the moral fitness of the lawyer, then the matter would be a proper subject
of a judicial action which is understandably outside the purview of the Courts disciplinary authority.
Thus, we hold that when the matter subject of the inquiry pertains to the mental and moral fitness of the

respondent to remain as member of the legal fraternity, the issue of whether the respondent be directed
to return the amount received from his client shall be deemed within the Courts disciplinary authority.
In this case, respondent received the amount of P42,000.00 supposedly as payment for his legal services
and as filing fees. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON 16 A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
xxxx
Rule 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. x x x
In this case, it is thus clear that respondent violated his lawyers oath and code of conduct when he
withheld the amount of P42,000.00 despite his failure to render the necessary legal services and after
complainant demanded its return. He must therefore be directed to return the same.
Finally, we emphasize that [t]he object of a disbarment proceeding is not so much to punish the
individual attorney himself as to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court and the
public from the misconduct of offi367
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012
367
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
cers of the court, and to remove from the profession of law persons whose disregard for their oath of
office [has] proved them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the
bar.45
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for four years. He is also DIRECTED to return to the complainant the amount of P42,000.00 within thirty
(30) days from the promulgation of this Decision.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for their information and guidance. The Court Administrator is directed to circulate this
Decision to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza
and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Sereno, J., On Official Leave.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., On Leave.
Respondent Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion suspended from practice of law for four (4) years.
Notes.A lawyers failure to return the clients money upon demand gives rise to the presumption that
he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him
by the clientit may border on the criminal as it may constitute a certiorari case of swindling or estafa.
(Belleza vs. Macasa, 593 SCRA 549 [2009]).
_______________
45 Berbano v. Atty. Barcelona, supra note 20 at p. 340; p. 264, citation omitted.
368
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anacta vs. Resurreccion

Possession of good moral character is not only a condition for admission to the Bar but is a continuing
requirement to maintain ones good standing in the legal profession. (Tiong vs. Florendo, 662 SCRA 1
[2011]).
o0o [Anacta vs. Resurreccion, 678 SCRA 352(2012)]

10