Case Digest (A.C. No. 8395)
Facts:
Susana de Guzman Buado and Nena Lising, complainants, filed a verified Letter-Complaint on December 9, 1999, against respondent Atty. Eufracio T. Layag (Administrative Case No. 5182). The complaint alleged that Layag had been the subject of criminal complaints for estafa—investigated by the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City and resulting in prima facie findings and the filing of two informations (Criminal Cases Nos. C-58087 and C-58088) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 124.By Resolution dated January 31, 2000, the Supreme Court directed that the respondent be furnished a copy of the complaint; Layag filed a Comment on April 11, 2000 denying malpractice and asserting he had turned over any money-judgment proceeds to an attorney-in-fact, Marie Paz P. Gonzales, at the express wish of his then-client, the late Rosita de Guzman. On July 10, 2000, the Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Milagros V. San Juan, submitted a report (Sept. 25, 2003) recounting that complainants Lising and her sister Rosita de Guzman were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. C-14265, Rosita de Guzman, et al. v. Inland Trailways, Inc., which the RTC of Caloocan, Branch 121, decided in the plaintiffs' favor on May 16, 1991. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 34012 (decision dated January 5, 1995). Rosita de Guzman died on July 3, 1993 while the appeal was pending.
Pursuant to the judgment, Inland Trailways, Inc. issued three checks in early 1996: (1) P15,000 payable to Atty. Layag (Traders Royal Bank Check No. 0000790549, Feb. 15, 1996); (2) P30,180 payable to Lising (Check No. 0000790548, Mar. 8, 1996); and (3) P49,000 payable to Rosita de Guzman (Check No. 0000790547, Mar. 8, 1996). These checks were received by respondent from the deputy sheriff in February 1996. Layag did not inform the complainants but allegedly delivered the checks to Marie Paz Gonzales, claiming a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by the decedent authorized Gonzales to encash or indorse settlement checks. The complainants only discovered the judgment awards and the alleged handling of the checks in February 1998; Gonzales later gave Lising P10,000, and no further remittances were made to Lising or to Susana de Guzman Buado despite their demands.
After hearing, the IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension for the maximum period and turnover of the amounts received, finding that Layag betrayed his clients' trust and violated Canons 15, 16, and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors, however, adopted the report with modification and resolved on October 25, 2003 to disbar Atty. Layag and to order him to turn over the amounts to the complainants. Respondent moved for reconsideration before the Supreme Court; because the IBP recommended disbarment, the Court En Banc accepted the motion for consideration.
The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP proceedings, the exhibits, and testimony. The Court found that Layag did not deny receipt of the checks but could not produce the alleged SPA and erred in relying on an agency instrument that, under Article 1919 of the Civil Code, is generally extinguished by the principal’s death; the exceptions under Article 1930 did not apply. The Court also found that respondent failed to account for or deliver the funds as required by Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and that his conduct constituted misappropriation...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was there sufficient evidence to hold respondent liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canons 15, 16 and 17)?
- Was disbarment the appropriate disciplinary penalty for respondent's...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)