Facts:

The case titled "Celia Arroyo-Posidio vs. Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan" (A.C. No. 6051) was decided on April 2, 2007. Complainant Celia Arroyo-Posidio filed a verified complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan, alleging deceit, fraud, dishonesty, and acts in violation of the lawyer's oath. The complaint arose from the respondent's handling of legal services in Special Proceeding No. C-525 before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City concerning the testate estate of Nicolasa S. de Guzman Arroyo. Arroyo-Posidio engaged Vitan's services and paid him P20,000.00 as legal fees. However, on June 6, 1990, Vitan withdrew as counsel, prompting Arroyo-Posidio to hire another lawyer.

In August 1996, the respondent contacted Arroyo-Posidio, presenting documents—specifically tax declarations—that indicated additional properties not included in the estate inventory. He convinced her to pursue a new case for her share of these undeclared properties

...

Facts:

Background of Engagement and Initial Services

• Complainant Celia Arroyo-Posidio engaged respondent Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan to represent her in Special Proceeding No. C-525 concerning the testate estate of deceased Nicolasa S. de Guzman Arroyo.
• Complainant paid respondent legal fees amounting to ₱20,000.00 for his services in the case before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City.
• On June 6, 1990, respondent withdrew his appearance in the said case, prompting complainant to hire another lawyer.

The Additional Engagement and Payment

• In August 1996, respondent reappeared by contacting complainant and produced documents, including tax declarations, purporting to show additional properties that were not part of the estate inventory in Special Proceeding No. C-525.
• He persuaded complainant to file another case to recover her share in these allegedly undeclared properties and demanded additional legal fees of ₱100,000.00.
• After several months without filing the new claim, complainant requested the return of the ₱100,000.00, which respondent refused despite repeated demands.

Civil Action and Judicial Findings

• Complainant subsequently filed an action for sum of money and damages against respondent, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 7130 before Branch 81, Metropolitan Trial Court, Valenzuela City.
• On March 31, 1999, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of complainant ordering respondent to pay:
• ₱100,000.00 with interest at 12% per annum from September 7, 1996, until fully paid;
• ₱8,000.00 for attorney’s fees; and
• the cost of suit.
• The decision was affirmed in toto by the Regional Trial Court and later became final and executory with the issuance of a Writ of Execution.

Attempt to Satisfy the Judgment and Subsequent Developments

• To satisfy the judgment, respondent issued a Prudential Bank check (No. 0338742) dated May 31, 2001, in the amount of ₱120,000.00 in favor of complainant.
• Upon presentment, the check was dishonored due to a “closed account”.
• Even after a written notice of dishonor and further demand on September 3, 2001, respondent refused to honor his financial obligation.

Administrative Complaint and Investigation

• Based on the foregoing circumstances, complainant filed an administrative complaint charging respondent with deceit, fraud, dishonesty, and violation of the lawyer’s oath.
• In his defense, respondent asserted that the ₱100,000.00 was a partial payment for services rendered in Special Proceeding No. C-525 and claimed to have already reimbursed complainant ₱150,000.00 as evidenced by a Receipt & Quitclaim.
• Evidentiary findings, however, determined that:
• The ₱20,000.00 paid initially was indeed for services rendered in the Special Proceeding;
• The ₱100,000.00 was for an additional claim regarding undeclared properties which was never acted upon by respondent.
• The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigation concluded in a Report (January 15, 2006) that respondent was guilty of violating the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issue:

Determination of the Nature of the Payment

• Was the ₱100,000.00 payment made by complainant intended solely for the filing of additional legal claims against the estate, rather than for prior legal services rendered in Special Proceeding No. C-525?

Applicability of Ethical and Legal Standards

• Does respondent’s refusal to return the ₱100,000.00, together with the issuance of a bouncing check, constitute deceit, fraud, and a breach of the fiduciary duty imposed by the lawyer’s oath and Code of Professional Responsibility?

Adequacy of Evidentiary Findings and Prior Judicial Decisions

• Are the findings of the Metropolitan Trial Court and the affirming Regional Trial Court sufficient to conclusively establish the nature of the transaction and the respondent’s misconduct?

Determination of the Appropriate Penalty

• Is the penalty of reprimand adopted by the IBP Board of Governors commensurate with the gravity of respondent’s wrongful act, or does the misconduct warrant a more severe sanction such as suspension?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)