Case Digest (A.C. No. 6368) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
Complainants Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N. Bengco filed a petition for the disbarment of Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo before the Supreme Court following allegations that between April 15 and July 22, 1997, he and one Andres Magat connived to defraud the Bengcos of ₱495,000.00 by promising to expedite the titling of land owned by the Miranda family in Tagaytay City. The respondent allegedly misrepresented himself as counsel for William Gatchalian, owner of Plastic City, and claimed to have contacts in various government offices. Having received the funds, he did not perform any services and refused to return the money upon demand. Preliminary investigations by the Third Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sto. Tomas–Minalin, Pampanga, and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of San Fernando, Pampanga, found probable cause for Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Atty. Bernardo repeatedly failed to file a verified comment or appear at IBP hearings despite extens Case Digest (A.C. No. 6368) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Complaint
- Complainants: Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N. Bengco filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo.
- Respondent: Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo was accused of deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, and violation of his duties and oath.
- Allegations of Misconduct
- Period of Misconduct: April 15, 1997 to July 22, 1997.
- Fraudulent Scheme:
- Respondent, aided by Andres Magat, allegedly misrepresented that he would expedite titling of the Miranda family’s land in Tagaytay City.
- Claimed to be lawyer for William Gatchalian and to have contacts at NAMRIA, DENR, CENRO, and the Register of Deeds.
- Induced complainants to advance ₱495,000, then misappropriated and converted the funds to personal use.
- Refused to return money despite demands.
- Procedural History
- Preliminary Investigations:
- December 7, 1998 and June 22, 1999 Resolutions by MCTC Sto. Tomas–Minalin and Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga found probable cause to charge respondent and Magat with estafa under RPC Art. 315(2)(a).
- IBP Proceedings:
- Respondent filed an undated, unverified comment denying allegations, attributing money receipt to Magat.
- Failed to file a verified answer despite IBP orders and extensions (requested due to medical confinement).
- Did not appear at mandatory conference; declared in default.
- Investigating Commissioner’s Report recommended suspension for two years.
- IBP Board of Governors adopted recommendation with modification: restitution of ₱200,000 within 60 days or face one-year suspension.
- Subsequent Events
- Motion for Reconsideration by respondent raised: prescription, lack of misrepresentation, due process, and partial restitution of ₱225,000.
- Complainants’ reply detailed delays due to attempted settlement, respondent’s hiding, and ongoing nonpayment.
- RTC Conviction: In 2008, respondent and Magat were found guilty of conspiracy to commit estafa (sentenced to 6 years + 1 day to 12 years + 1 day).
Issues:
- Liability for Professional Misconduct
- Did respondent’s acts of deceit, misrepresentation, and misappropriation of funds constitute violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
- Did respondent’s default and contempt for IBP processes aggravate his misconduct?
- Applicability of Prescription and Effect of Criminal Conviction
- Is the disbarment complaint barred by the two-year prescription rule?
- What bearing does the criminal conviction for estafa have on the administrative disciplinary proceedings?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)