A.C. No. 12768 - Bondoc vs. Licudine

In 2015, Felicitas H. Bondoc (complainant), a resident of Alberta, Canada, sought a Philippine lawyer for a civil annulment case against her husband, Benjamin Bondoc.
A common friend introduced complainant to respondent, Atty. Marlow L. Licudine, practicing in Baguio City.
On October 1, 2015, complainant and respondent agreed that respondent would handle the annulment case.

On October 2, 2015, complainant’s representative, Maurice G. Deslauriers, deposited CAD$2,000.00 to respondent’s bank account as an initial down payment for legal fees.
Months passed without any update from respondent about the case.
Complainant discovered respondent divulged her personal information.

Due to respondent’s inaction and the disclosure incident, complainant terminated respondent’s services.
Between February 28 and March 8, 2016, complainant spoke with respondent who admitted spending the money, promising to refund half by March’s end, but did not explain the usage.
On March 7, 2016, complainant sent a Demand Letter for accounting and refund, duly received by respondent.
After nearly two months without response, a Second and Final Demand Letter was sent and received.
In July 2016, complainant’s son Conrad H. Bautista followed up and sent a Special Authorization from complainant, sworn before the Philippine Consulate General, authorizing him to transact with respondent; respondent received it.

Respondent promised refund by August 15, 2016, but failed to deliver, citing incomplete processing of fees.
From August 30 to October 3, 2016, repeated follow-ups were ignored or met with excuses such as pending remittances and low collections.
On October 18, 2016, respondent again promised refund by the last week of October; he did not follow through and ceased communication afterward.

Complainant filed an administrative case against respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline.
Respondent’s belated answer admitted the referral and payment but denied divulging information, acknowledged rift with complainant, claimed use of fees to prepare the petition, and expressed willingness to return funds upon receipt of complaint.
Respondent cited typhoon disruptions and asserted the refund was endorsed but overlooked in his law office.
Respondent did not comply with IBP orders to appear or file position paper.

Only complainant’s authorized representative appeared in the mandatory conference; respondent was absent.
The Commission recommended suspension for one (1) year for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) and the Lawyer’s Oath.
The IBP Board increased suspension to two (2) years and imposed a P5,000.00 fine for respondent’s failure to file position paper.
Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied; penalty upheld with added directive to refund money with interest from date of demand.

The Court affirmed violations of the Lawyer’s Oath, Canons 1 & 16, and Rules 1.01, 16.01, 16.02, and 16.03 of the Code.
Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years and fined P10,000.00 for disobedience to IBP orders.
Ordered to return complainant’s CAD$2,000.00 plus legal interest within ninety (90) days.

Whether respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to file the annulment case and withholding client’s money despite demands.
Whether respondent breached his duty to account for and return client’s funds entrusted to him.
The proper penalty to impose for these violations.
Whether respondent’s failure to comply with IBP orders warrant additional sanctions.