Title
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
Case
A.C. No. 9074
Decision Date
Aug 14, 2012
Atty. Resurreccion misrepresented filing an annulment petition, pocketed P42,000, and was suspended for four years for deceit and dishonesty.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 9074)

Facts:

  1. Engagement of Legal Services: On November 15, 2004, complainant Grace M. Anacta engaged the services of respondent Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion to file a petition for annulment of marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. She paid him P42,000.00 for this purpose.
  2. Misrepresentation of Filing: In December 2004, respondent presented a supposed copy of the Petition for Annulment of Marriage, bearing a stamped receipt dated December 8, 2004, and a docket number, Civil Case No. 04-25141.
  3. Discovery of Non-Filing: Complainant later discovered that no such petition was filed with the RTC of Quezon City. She terminated respondent’s services due to loss of trust and confidence and requested the court to refuse any belated filing by respondent.
  4. Demand for Explanation: On July 30, 2007, complainant, through new counsel, demanded an explanation and indemnification from respondent. Respondent failed to respond, prompting the filing of a disbarment complaint.
  5. IBP Proceedings: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent guilty of deceit and dishonesty for misrepresenting the filing of the petition and pocketing the P42,000.00. The IBP recommended a four-year suspension and ordered the return of the amount.

Issue:

  1. Whether respondent Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion committed deceit, dishonesty, and gross misconduct by misrepresenting the filing of the petition for annulment and failing to return the P42,000.00.
  2. Whether the penalty of disbarment or suspension is appropriate for the respondent’s actions.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP. Respondent Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion was found guilty of deceit, dishonesty, and gross misconduct. The Court imposed a four-year suspension from the practice of law and ordered respondent to return the P42,000.00 to the complainant within 30 days.

Ratio:

  1. Deceit and Dishonesty: Respondent misrepresented that he had filed the petition for annulment and presented a falsified document to the complainant. His failure to file the petition and refusal to return the money constituted deceit and dishonesty.
  2. Violation of Professional Responsibility: Respondent violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to account for and return client funds upon demand. His actions demonstrated a lack of integrity and trustworthiness.
  3. Penalty: The Court emphasized that disbarment is not automatic in cases of deceit or gross misconduct. Suspension is sufficient if it accomplishes the desired end of protecting the public and the legal profession. The four-year suspension was deemed appropriate, considering the gravity of the misconduct and the absence of prior similar cases against the respondent.
  4. Return of Funds: The Court held that the return of the P42,000.00 falls within its disciplinary authority, as it pertains to the moral fitness of the respondent to remain a member of the bar.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion for four years and ordered him to return the P42,000.00 to the complainant. The decision underscores the importance of honesty, integrity, and accountability in the legal profession.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.