Title
Bondoc vs. Licudine
Case
A.C. No. 12768
Decision Date
Jun 23, 2020
Lawyer failed to file annulment case, misused client funds, disclosed personal info, and delayed refund, violating ethical duties; suspended for 2 years.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 12768)

Facts:

Legal Engagement and Initial Payment
Felicitas H. Bondoc (complainant), a resident of Alberta, Canada, engaged Atty. Marlow L. Licudine (respondent) in October 2015 to handle her civil case for annulment of marriage. Complainant paid respondent CAD$2,000.00 as an initial down payment for legal fees, deposited through her representative, Maurice G. Deslauriers.

Inaction and Disclosure of Personal Information
Several months passed without any updates on the case. Complainant also discovered that respondent had divulged her personal information, leading her to terminate his services.

Demand for Refund
From February 28 to March 8, 2016, complainant met with respondent during her visit to the Philippines. Respondent claimed he had spent the money but agreed to return half of the amount by the end of March 2016. Complainant sent a demand letter on March 7, 2016, requesting an accounting and refund of the legal fees. A second demand letter was sent two months later, but respondent still failed to comply.

Follow-ups and Unfulfilled Promises
Complainant's son, Conrad Bautista, followed up with respondent, who repeatedly promised to return the money but failed to do so. Despite presenting proper authorization, respondent continued to delay the refund, citing issues with remittances and office collections.

Administrative Complaint
Due to respondent’s failure to refund the money or provide an explanation, complainant filed an administrative case against him.

Respondent's Defense
Respondent claimed he was researching church-instituted annulments at complainant's request. He admitted receiving the payment but argued that he had used it to prepare the petition, which he never filed. He alleged that complainant’s live-in partner accused him of disclosing personal information, leading to the termination of their agreement. Respondent also claimed he was hesitant to deal with Conrad due to doubts about his identity.

Issue:

  1. Whether respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to file the civil case and refusing to refund the legal fees.
  2. Whether respondent’s conduct constituted unethical behavior, including misappropriation of client funds and unauthorized disclosure of personal information.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


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.