Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Anacta vs. Resurrecion

    Uploaded by

    kristian datinguinoo
    Complainant hired respondent lawyer to file a petition for annulment of her marriage and paid him 42,000 pesos. However, over a month later when complainant asked about the status of the case, she discovered that respondent never actually filed the petition. This prompted her to file a complaint seeking respondent's disbarment. The Supreme Court ruled that respondent committed deceitful acts by falsely claiming to file the petition and accepting payment, which is a violation of his duties as a lawyer. However, considering the circumstances, the Court imposed a 4-year suspension rather than disbarment, finding it to be a commensurate penalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Anacta vs. Resurrecion

    Uploaded by

    kristian datinguinoo
    14 views2 pages
    Complainant hired respondent lawyer to file a petition for annulment of her marriage and paid him 42,000 pesos. However, over a month later when complainant asked about the status of the case, she discovered that respondent never actually filed the petition. This prompted her to file a complaint seeking respondent's disbarment. The Supreme Court ruled that respondent committed deceitful acts by falsely claiming to file the petition and accepting payment, which is a violation of his duties as a lawyer. However, considering the circumstances, the Court imposed a 4-year suspension rather than disbarment, finding it to be a commensurate penalty.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Complainant hired respondent lawyer to file a petition for annulment of her marriage and paid him 42,000 pesos. However, over a month later when complainant asked about the status of the case, she discovered that respondent never actually filed the petition. This prompted her to file a complaint seeking respondent's disbarment. The Supreme Court ruled that respondent committed deceitful acts by falsely claiming to file the petition and accepting payment, which is a violation of his duties as a lawyer. However, considering the circumstances, the Court imposed a 4-year suspension rather than disbarment, finding it to be a commensurate penalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    14 views2 pages

    Anacta vs. Resurrecion

    Uploaded by

    kristian datinguinoo
    Complainant hired respondent lawyer to file a petition for annulment of her marriage and paid him 42,000 pesos. However, over a month later when complainant asked about the status of the case, she discovered that respondent never actually filed the petition. This prompted her to file a complaint seeking respondent's disbarment. The Supreme Court ruled that respondent committed deceitful acts by falsely claiming to file the petition and accepting payment, which is a violation of his duties as a lawyer. However, considering the circumstances, the Court imposed a 4-year suspension rather than disbarment, finding it to be a commensurate penalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GRACE M. ANACTA vs. ATTY. EDUARDO D.

    RESURRECCION

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

    DEL CASTILLO, J.:

    Facts:

    Complainant engaged the services of respondent to file on her behalf a petition for annulment of her
    marriage for which she paid respondent P 42,000.00.

    A month later, respondent presented to the complainant a supposed copy of a Petition for Annulment
    of Marriage which bore the stamped receipt of the RTC, as well as its docket number. However, 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. To her surprise and
    dismay, she discovered that no petition for annulment was ever filed before the said court. She then
    terminated the services of respondent and prayed for the latter’s disbarment.

    Issue:

    Whether respondent should be administratively liable.

    Ruling: Yes

    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."

    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:

    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 lawyer's 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, 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.

    You might also like