EN BANC

[A.C. No. 5054. May 29, 2002.]

SOLEDAD NUÑEZ, represented by ANANIAS B. CO, Attorney-

in-Fact for complainant, petitioner, vs. ATTY. ROMULO
RICAFORT, respondent.

Ananias B. Co, Jr. for complainant.

SYNOPSIS

This is an administrative complaint filed by Soledad Nuñez, a septuagenarian

represented by her attorney-in-fact Ananias B. Co, seeking the disbarment of
respondent. It appeared that the complainant authorized the respondent to sell
her two parcels of land for a commission. However, after selling the lots he did
not turn over the proceeds of the sale despite complainant's repeated demands.
This forced the complainant to file an action for a sum of money against the
respondent and his wife. Thereafter, the court ordered respondent to pay his
obligation to the complainant. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals,
which was dismissed for non-payment of docket fee. In the satisfaction of the
writ of execution issued by the court, the respondent issued four postdated
checks, which were later dishonored because the account had been closed. Again,
because respondent ignored the repeated demands of the complainant to make
good the checks, four criminal complaints for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 were filed
against him and his wife. Because of the failure of the respondent to comment
on the complaint against him, the Supreme Court referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. The IBP investigating commissioner concluded that the
respondent had no intention to honor the money judgment against him and
recommended that respondent be declared guilty of misconduct and be
suspended from the practice of law for at least one year and pay the amount of
the checks issued to the complainant.
The Supreme Court concurred with the findings of the IBP that the respondent
was guilty of misconduct in his dealings with complainant. By violating Rule 1.01
of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent diminished
public confidence in the law and lawyers. The penalty of suspension imposed by
the IBP was inadequate. For his deliberate violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and
Rules 12.03 and 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
coupled with his palpable bad faith and dishonesty in his dealings with the
complainant, respondent deserved a graver penalty. The graver penalty is
indefinite suspension from the practice of law.

SYLLABUS

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 1. LEGAL ETHICS; CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY; VIOLATION
THEREOF DIMINISHES PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN LAW AND LAWYERS; PRESENT IN
CASE AT BAR. — There is no need to stretch one's imagination to arrive at an
inevitable conclusion that respondent gravely abused the confidence that
complainant reposed in him and committed dishonesty when he did not turn
over the proceeds of the sale of her property. Worse, with palpable bad faith, he
compelled the complainant to go to court for the recovery of the proceeds of the
sale and, in the process, to spend money, time and energy therefor. Then, despite
his deliberate failure to answer the complaint resulting in his having been
declared in default, he appealed from the judgment to the Court of Appeals.
Again, bad faith attended such a step because he did not pay the docket fee
despite notice. Needless to state, respondent wanted to prolong the travails and
energy and agony of the complainant and to enjoy the fruits of what rightfully
belongs to the latter. Unsatisfied with what he had already unjustly and
unlawfully done to complainant, respondent issued checks to satisfy the alias
writ of execution. But, remaining unrepentant of what he had done and in
continued pursuit of a clearly malicious plan not to pay complainant of what had
been validly and lawfully adjudged by the court against him, respondent closed
the account against which the checks were drawn. There was deceit in this.
Respondent never had the intention of paying his obligation as proved by the fact
that despite the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, he did not pay the
obligation. All the foregoing constituted grave and gross misconduct in 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, respondent diminished public confidence in the law and lawyers
(Busiños v. Ricafort, 283 SCRA 407 [1997]; Ducat v. Villalon, 337 SCRA 622
[2000]). Instead of promoting such confidence and respect, he miserably failed to
live up to the standards of the legal profession (Gonato v. Adaza, 328 SCRA 694
[2000]; Ducat v. Villalon, supra).
2. ID.; ID.; LAWYERS ARE REQUIRED TO AVOID ANY ACTION THAT WOULD
UNDULY DELAY A CASE, IMPEDE EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT OR MISUSE COURT
PROCESSES; VIOLATION IN CASE AT BAR. — Respondent's 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, respondent even had the
temerity of making a mockery of our 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 Highest Court of the land, respondent
openly showed a high degree of irresponsibility amounting to willful disobedience
to its lawful orders (Thermochem Incorporated v. Naval, 344 SCRA 76, 82
[2000]; Sipin-Nabor v. Atty. Baterina, Adm. Case No. 4073, 28 June 2001).
Respondent then knowingly and willfully violated Rules 12.04 and 12:03 of
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which respectively provide
that lawyers should avoid any action that would unduly delay a case, impede the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 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.
3. ID.; ID.; WHEN DELIBERATELY VIOLATED; PROPER PENALTY. — The penalty of
suspension "for at least one (1) year" imposed by the Board of Governors of the
IBP is both vague and inadequate. A suspension may either be indefinite or for a
specific duration. Besides, under the circumstances of this case a suspension for a
year is plainly very light and inadequate. For his deliberate violation or defiance
of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rules 12:03 and 12:04 of Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, coupled with his palpable bad faith and dishonesty in
his dealings with the complainant, respondent deserves a grave penalty. That
graver penalty is indefinite suspension from the practice of law.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM : p

This is an administrative complaint filed on 21 April 1999 by Soledad Nuñez, a

septuagenarian represented by her attorney-in-fact Ananias B. Co, Jr., seeking the
disbarment of respondent Atty. Romulo Ricafort on the ground of grave
misconduct. SIDEaA

From the documents submitted by the complainant, it appears that sometime in

October 1982 she authorized respondent to sell her two parcels of land located in
Legazpi City for P40,000. She agreed to give respondent 10 percent of the price
as commission. Respondent succeeded in selling the lots, but despite
complainant's repeated demands, he did not turn over to her the proceeds of the
sale. This forced complainant to file against respondent and his wife an action for
a sum of money before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The case was
docketed as Civil Case No. Q-93-15052. DaACIH

For his failure to file an answer, respondent was declared in default and
complainant was required to present ex-parte her evidence. On 29 September
1993, the court rendered its decision (Annex "C" of the Complaint) ordering
respondent herein to pay complainant the sum of P16,000 as principal obligation,
with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of the commencement of
the action, i.e., 8 March 1993, until it is fully paid, and to pay the costs of suit.
Respondent and his wife appealed from the decision to the Court of Appeals.
However, the appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the required docket fee
within the reglementary period despite notice.
On 23 October 1995 complainant filed in Civil Case No. Q-93-15052 a motion for
the issuance of an alias writ of execution, which the court granted on 30 October
1995. The next day, the alias writ of execution was issued (Annex "B" of
Complaint). It appears that only a partial satisfaction of the P16,000 judgment
was made, leaving P13,800 thereof unsatisfied. In payment for the latter,
respondent issued four postdated checks drawn against his account in China
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Banking Corporation, Legazpi City.
Upon presentment, however, the checks were dishonored because the account
against which they were drawn was closed (Annexes "D" and "E" of Complaint).
Demands for respondent to make good the checks fell on deaf ears, thus forcing
complainant to file four criminal complaints for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City (Annexes "F", "G", "H" and "I" of the
Complaint).
In the "Joint Affidavit" of respondent and his wife filed with the Office of the
Prosecutor, Quezon City, respondent admitted having drawn and issued said four
postdated checks in favor of complainant. Allegedly believing in good faith that
said checks had already been encashed by complainant, 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.

We required respondent to comment on the complaint. But he never did despite

our favorable action on his three motions for extension of time to file the
comment. His failure to do so compelled complainant to file on 10 March 2000 a
motion to cite respondent 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."
In our resolution of 14 June 2000, we noted the motion for contempt; considered
respondent to have waived the filing of a comment; and referred this case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation or decision within ninety days from notice of the resolution.
In her Report and Recommendation dated 12 September 2000, Investigating
Commissioner Atty. Milagros V. San Juan concluded that respondent had no
intention to "honor" the money judgment against him in Civil Case No. Q-93-
15052 as can be gleaned from his (1) issuance of postdated checks; (2) closing of
the account against which said checks were drawn; and (3) continued failure to
make good the amounts of the checks. She then recommends that respondent 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.
In its Resolution No. XV-2001-244 of 27 October 2001, the Board of Governors of
the IBP approved and adopted Atty. San Juan's Report and Recommendation.
We concur with the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, as adopted and
approved by the Board of Governors of the IBP, that respondent Atty. Romulo
Ricafort is guilty of grave misconduct in his dealings with complainant. Indeed,
the record shows respondent's grave misconduct and notorious dishonesty.
There is no need to stretch one's imagination to arrive at an inevitable conclusion
that respondent gravely abused the confidence that complainant reposed in him
and committed dishonesty when he did not turn over the proceeds of the sale of
her property. Worse, with palpable bad faith, he compelled the complainant to go
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 to court for the recovery of the proceeds of the sale and, in the process, to spend
money, time and energy therefor. Then, despite his deliberate failure to answer
the complaint resulting in his having been declared in default, he appealed from
the judgment to the Court of Appeals. Again, bad faith attended such a step
because he did not pay the docket fee despite notice. Needless to state,
respondent wanted to prolong the travails and agony of the complainant and to
enjoy the fruits of what rightfully belongs to the latter. Unsatisfied with what he
had already unjustly and unlawfully done to complainant, respondent issued
checks to satisfy the alias writ of execution. But, remaining unrepentant of what
he had done and in continued pursuit of a clearly malicious plan not to pay
complainant of what had been validly and lawfully adjudged by the court against
him, respondent closed the account against which the checks were drawn. There
was deceit in this. Respondent never had the intention of paying his obligation as
proved by the fact that despite the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, he
did not pay the obligation.
All the foregoing constituted grave and gross misconduct in 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.

Respondent's claim of good faith in closing his account because he thought

complainant has already encashed all checks is preposterous. The account was
closed on or before 26 February 1996. He knew that there were still other checks
due on 29 February 1996 and 15 March 1996 which could not be encashed before
their maturity dates.
By violating Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
respondent diminished public confidence in the law and the lawyers (Busiños v.
Ricafort, 283 SCRA 407 [1997]; Ducat v. Villalon, 337 SCRA 622 [2000]). Instead
of promoting such confidence and respect, he miserably failed to live up to the
standards of the legal profession (Gonato v. Adaza, 328 SCRA 694 [2000]; Ducat
v. Villalon, supra).
Respondent's 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,
respondent even had the temerity of making a mockery of our 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 Highest Court of the
land, respondent openly showed a high degree of irresponsibility amounting to
willful disobedience to its lawful orders (Thermochem Incorporated v. Naval, 344
SCRA 76, 82 [2000]; Sipin-Nabor v. Atty. Baterina, Adm. Case No. 4073, 28 June
2001).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 Respondent then knowingly and willfully violated Rules 12:04 and 12:03 of
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which respectively provide
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 penalty of suspension "for at least one (1) year" imposed by the Board of
Governors of the IBP is both vague and inadequate. A suspension may either be
indefinite or for a specific duration. Besides, under the circumstances of this case
a suspension for a year is plainly very light and inadequate. For his deliberate
violation or defiance of Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 and Rules 12:03 and 12:04 of
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, coupled with his palpable
bad faith and dishonesty in his dealings with the complainant, respondent
deserves a graver penalty. That graver penalty is indefinite suspension from the
practice of law.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, respondent Atty. Romulo Ricafort is hereby
INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED from the practice of law, and is directed to pay
complainant Soledad Nuñez the amount of P13,800 within ten (10) days from
notice of this resolution. cCaSHA

This resolution shall take effect immediately. Copies thereof shall be furnished
the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent's personal record;
the Office of the President; the Department of Justice; the Court of Appeals; the
Sandiganbayan; and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Court
Administrator shall also furnish all lower courts with copies of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-
Martinez and Corona, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com