Nunez v Ricafort (382 SCRA 381)

Facts:

An administrative complaint was by Soledad Nuñez, a septuagenarian represented by her attorney-in-fact Ananias B. Co, Jr., seeking the disbarment of Atty. Romulo Ricafort on the ground of grave misconduct.

Sometime in October 1982, Soledad authorized Atty. Ricafort to sell her two parcels of land located in Legazpi City for P40,000. She agreed to the lawyer 10% of the price as commission. Atty. Ricafort succeeded in selling the lots, but despite Soledad’s repeated demands, he did not turn over the proceeds of the sale. This forced Soledad to file an action for a sum of money before the RTC, Quezon City.

The court rendered its decision ordering the Atty. to pay Soledad the sum of P16,000 as principal obligation, with at the legal rate from the date of the commencement of the action.

An appeal to the CA was made. However, the appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the required docket fee within the reglementary period despite notice.

Soledad filed a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution. But it appears that only a partial satisfaction of the P16,000 judgment was made, leaving P13,800 unsatisfied. In payment for the latter, Atty. issued four postdated checks but was dishonored because the account against which they were drawn was closed.

Hence, Soledad was forced to file four criminal complaints for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 before the MTC, Quezon City.

In a joint affidavit, Atty. Ricafort admitted having drawn and issued said four postdated checks in favor of Soledad. Allegedly believing in good faith that said checks had already been encashed by Soledad, he subsequently closed his checking account in China Banking Corporation, Legazpi City, from which said four checks were drawn. He was not notified that the checks were dishonored. Had he been notified, he would have made the necessary arrangements with the bank.

The court required Atty. to comment on the complaint. But he never did despite the favorable action on his three motions for extension of time to file the comment. His failure to do so compelled Soledad to file a motion to cite Atty. in contempt on the ground that his strategy to file piecemeal motions for extension of time to submit the comment “smacks of a delaying tactic scheme that is unworthy of a member of the bar and a law dean.”

The IBP findings show that the Atty. had no intention to “honor” the money judgment against him. It recommended that Atty. be declared “guilty of misconduct in his dealings with complainant” and be suspended from the practice of law for at least one year and pay the amount of the checks issued to the complainant.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Romulo Ricafort is guilty of grave misconduct in his dealings with complainant.

Held:

YES.  There is a blatant violation of Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.

By violating Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. diminished public confidence in the law and the lawyers. Instead of promoting such confidence and respect, he miserably failed to live up to the standards of the legal profession.

His act of issuing bad checks in satisfaction of the alias writ of execution for money judgment rendered by the trial court was a clear attempt to defeat the ends of justice. His failure to make good the checks despite demands and the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 showed his continued defiance of judicial processes, which he, as an officer of the court, was under continuing duty to uphold.

To further demonstrate his very low regard for the courts and judicial processes, he even had the temerity of making a mockery of the court’s generosity to him. We granted his three motions for extension of time to file his comment on the complaint in this case. Yet, not only did he fail to file the comment, he as well did not even bother to explain such failure notwithstanding our resolution declaring him as having waived the filing of the comment. To the SC, Atty. openly showed a high degree of irresponsibility amounting to willful disobedience to its lawful orders.

Atty. Ricafort then knowingly and willfully violated Rules 12.04 and 12:03 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility stating that:

Lawyers should avoid any action that would unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes; and that lawyers, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, should not let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for their failure to do so.

The SC indefinitely suspended Atty. Ricafort from the practice of law and directed to pay Soledad P13,800.