Facts:

• Amparo Bueno filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Ramon A. RaAeses on March 3, 1993, with the IBP-CBD.
• Bueno engaged Atty. RaAeses for Civil Case No. 777, paying a retainer fee of P3,000.00 and P300.00 for each hearing.
• She alleged that Atty. RaAeses was often absent or late for hearings.
• On November 14, 1988, he solicited P10,000.00 from her, claiming it was for a bribe to Judge Nidea for a favorable case outcome.
• In December 1988, he requested an additional P5,000.00, which Bueno raised by selling her belongings.
• Atty. RaAeses failed to comply with court directives, resulting in an adverse decision against Bueno.
• Bueno confronted him and learned he had received the decision on December 3, 1990, but did not inform her.
• In June 1991, he solicited another P5,000.00 to bribe Justice Buena of the Court of Appeals.
• Atty. RaAeses did not respond to the complaint or attend multiple IBP hearings.
• The case was submitted for resolution without his participation.
• Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco recommended disbarment for soliciting bribes but found insufficient evidence for negligence.
• The IBP Board of Governors approved disbarment but reduced the penalty to indefinite suspension.
• The case was escalated to the Supreme Court for final resolution.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court found Atty. RaAeses guilty of soliciting money to bribe a judge and disbarred him from practicing law.
• The Court upheld the IBP's finding that Atty. RaAeses was ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. RaAeses due to the serious nature of his misconduct, which included soliciting bribes, undermining the integrity of the legal profession and judiciary.
• The Court noted that soliciting bribes is inherently secretive, and Bueno's consistent testimony was credible despite the lack of documentary evidence.
• Atty. RaAeses's failure to respond to the complaint and his absence during hearings showed a disregard for the disciplinary proce...continue reading