 |
|||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||
On April 20, 2016, the Integrated Bar of the, Philippines transmitted the case to this Court for final action under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.23 This Court modifies the findings of the Board of Governors. I Respondent's repeated failure to comply with several Resolutions of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines requiring him to comment on the complaint lends credence to complainant's allegations. It manifests his tacit admission. Hence, we resolve this case on the basis of the complaint and other documents submitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. In Macarilay v. Serina,24 this Court held that "[t]he unjustified withholding of funds belonging to the client warrants the imposition of disciplinary action against the lawyer."25 By absconding with the money entrusted to him by his client and behaving in a manner not befitting a member of the bar, respondent violated the following Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
As his client's advocate, a lawyer is duty-bound to protect his client's interests and the degree of service expected of him in this capacity is his "entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability."26 The lawyer also has a fiduciary duty, with the lawyer-client relationship imbued with utmost trust and confidence.27 Respondent failed to serve his client with fidelity, competence, and diligence. He not only neglected the attorney-client relationship established between them; he also acted in a reprehensible manner towards complainant, i.e., cussing and threatening complainant and his family with bodily harm, hiding from complainant, and refusing without reason to return the money entrusted to him for the processing of the work permit. Respondent's behavior demonstrates his lack of integrity and moral soundness. Del Mundo v Capistrano28 has reiterated the exacting standards expected of law practitioners:
A lawyer must, at no time, lack probity and moral fiber, which are not only conditions precedent to his entrance to the bar but are likewise essential demands for his continued membership. 30 II When complainant refused to give respondent any more money to process his work permit, respondent persuaded complainant to give him an additional ₱8,000.00 purportedly to ensure that a motion for reconsideration pending before a Las Pifias judge would be decided in complainant's favor. 31 However, after receiving ₱28,000.00 from complainant for the work permit and ensuring the success of complainant's court case, respondent made himself scarce and could no longer be contacted. Although nothing in the records showed whether the court case was indeed decided in complainant's favor, respondent's act of soliciting money to bribe a judge served to malign the judge and the judiciary by giving the impression that court cases are won by the party with the deepest pockets and not on the merits. 32 "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system."33 Further, "a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body."34 By implying that he can negotiate a favorable ruling for the sum of ₱8,000.00, respondent trampled upon the integrity of the judicial system and eroded confidence on the judiciary. This gross disrespect of the judicial system shows that he is wanting in moral fiber and betrays the lack of integrity in his character. The practice of law is a privilege, and respondent has repeatedly shown that he is unfit to exercise it. III As for the sufficiency of notice to respondent of the disbarment proceedings against him, this Court notes that on May 14, 2014, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines directed respondent to answer the complaint against him, but he failed to file his answer.35 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines set two (2) separate dates for mandatory conferences36 after respondent failed to attend the first setting, but he failed to appear in both instances.37 All issuances from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines had the requisite registry receipts attached to them. Stemmerik v. Mas38 discussed the sufficiency of notice of disbarment proceedings. This Court held that lawyers must update their records with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines by informing it of any change in office or residential address and contact details.39 Service of notice on the office or residential address appearing in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines records shall constitute sufficient notice to a lawyer for administrative proceedings against him or her.40 WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Socrates R. Rivera 1s SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years. He is ORDERED to return to complainant Adegoke R. Plumptre the amount of ₱28,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of promulgation of this Resolution until fully paid. He is likewise DIRECTED to submit to this Court proof of payment of the amount within 10 days from payment. Let copies of this Resolution be entered in respondent's personal record as a member of the bar, and be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts in the country. SO ORDERED. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Footnotes * On leave 1 Rollo, pp. 2-13 2 Id. at 2. 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Id. at 4. 8 Id. 9 Id. at 3. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Id. at 4-5. 13 Id. at 3. 14 Id. 15 Id. at 2-13. 16 Id. at 14. 17 Id. at 22. 18 Id. at 24. 19 Id. 20 Id. at 46-47, Report and Recommendation. 21 Id. at 35-36, Notice of Resolution. 22 Id. at 35. 23 Id. at 34. 24 497 Phil 348 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]. 25 Id. at 360. 26 Section 15, Canons of Professional Ethics. 27 Saldivar v. Cabanes, Jr., 713 Phil. 530, 537 (2013) [Per. J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division]. 28 685 Phil 687 (2012) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Third Division]. 29 Id. at 693. 30 Gonzaga v. Villanueva, Jr., 478 Phil. 859, 869 (2004) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First Division]. 31 Rollo, p. 4. 32 Id. at 3. 33 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1, rule 1.02. 34 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 15, rule 15.06. 35 Rollo, p. 14. 36 Id. at 15 and 22. 37 Id. at 21 and 23. 38 607 Phil. 89 (2009) [Per Curiam, En Banc]. 39 Id. at 95-96. 40 Id. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation 
| |||||||||||||||
