Facts:

The case involves Grace M. Anacta as the complainant and Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion as the respondent. The complaint for disbarment was filed on August 22, 2007, with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). The complainant engaged the services of the respondent on November 15, 2004, to file a petition for annulment of marriage in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, for which she paid him P42,000.00. In December 2004, the respondent presented a purported copy of the petition for annulment, complete with a stamped receipt from the RTC dated December 8, 2004, and a docket number, Civil Case No. 04-25141. However, the complainant did not receive any further communication from the respondent or the court regarding the petition. Concerned, she inquired with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Quezon City, only to discover that no such petition had been filed. Consequently, the complainant terminated the respondent's ...

Facts:

Background and Initiation of Proceedings

• Complainant Grace M. Anacta filed a Complaint for Disbarment on August 22, 2007 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
• The complaint was against respondent Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion for gross misconduct, deceit, and malpractice in connection with the legal services rendered.

Engagement and Transaction Details

• On November 15, 2004, the complainant engaged the services of respondent to file a petition for the annulment of her marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.
• The complainant paid the respondent a sum of P42,000.00 for the legal services to be rendered.

Misrepresentation and Discovery of the Fraudulent Act

• In December 2004, respondent presented to the complainant a purported copy of the Petition for Annulment of Marriage, complete with a stamped receipt dated December 8, 2004, and a docket number (Civil Case No. 04-25141).
• The complainant, having received no further communication or notice from respondent or the trial court, inquired with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC in Quezon City.
• It was discovered that no petition for annulment was filed under the mentioned docket number, thereby exposing respondent’s misrepresentation.

Termination of the Attorney-Client Relationship

• Upon discovering the fraudulent act, the complainant terminated the services of respondent due to loss of trust and confidence.
• The complainant also requested the Office of the Clerk of Court to refuse any belated attempt by respondent to file a petition on her behalf.

Subsequent Communications and Default in IBP Proceedings

• On July 30, 2007, through her new counsel, the complainant sent a letter demanding an explanation from the respondent concerning his failure to perform and how he intended to indemnify her for the damages suffered.
• Respondent failed to reply to the notice, prompting the complainant to file motions to declare the respondent in default and to hear the case ex-parte.
• The Director for Bar Discipline ordered the respondent to submit his answer within 15 days; however, respondent did not comply.
• A Mandatory Conference was set for October 6, 2008, at which only the complainant and her counsel appeared.
• Consequently, the Investigating Commissioner deemed that respondent had waived his right to file an answer and allowed the complainant to submit a verified position paper, which was filed on October 15, 2008.

Evidence Presented and Findings of the Investigating Commissioner

• Documents on record included:
• The Service Agreement dated November 15, 2004, confirming the existence of the attorney-client relationship.
• The “Petition for Annulment of Marriage” purportedly filed on December 8, 2004, along with the receipt and docket details.
• A certification from the RTC’s Office of the Clerk confirming that no such petition was filed.
• Letters from the complainant terminating the legal services and demanding an explanation from the respondent.
• The Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation (dated December 8, 2008) found clear and convincing evidence that respondent misrepresented having filed the petition after receiving the fee, thereby committing deceit and dishonesty.
• Based on the evidence, the Commission recommended a suspension of two years and directed respondent to reimburse the complainant’s P42,000.00.

IBP Board Decision and Modification of Penalty

• In its Resolution dated August 28, 2010, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s findings.
• The original suspension period was modified from two years to four years.
• The Board also ordered that respondent must return the P42,000.00 to the complainant, failing which his suspension would continue until compliance.

Overall Context of Misconduct

• The act of deceit was underscored by respondent’s deliberate silence and disregard for the established legal and administrative processes.
• His misconduct not only involved misrepresenting the filing of a legal document but also misappropriating funds intended for legal services, thereby violating the rules of fiduciary responsibility.

Issue:

• Whether the evidence submitted by the complainant sufficiently establishes that respondent committed deceit and misconduct in misrepresenting the filing of the petition.
• Whether the respondent’s failure to answer or participate in the proceedings constitutes an implicit admission of guilt.
• Whether the penalty of suspension (as opposed to disbarment) is appropriate in view of the degree of misconduct committed.
• Whether the disciplinary authority of the IBP and the court extends to directing respondent to return the P42,000.00 to the complainant.
• How the principles of protecting the public and maintaining the integrity of the legal profession are balanced against the severity of the respondent’s misconduct.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)